Archive: Animals in Laboratories

AWI Urges House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to Advance Animal Welfare Legislation

In a letter issued today to US House of Representatives Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) urged the Majority Leader to advance animal welfare legislation in the House.

“With the 115th Congress now well into in its second session, we hope that Leader McCarthy will make animal welfare legislation a priority,” stated Cathy Liss, AWI president. “Each of these bills, which provide a practical and humane solution to pressing animal welfare concerns, have well over 100 cosponsors and broad bipartisan support. We urge the majority leader to bring these bills forward for a vote by the full US House of Representatives.”

Pending legislation highlighted in AWI’s letter include the following:

  • Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act (HR 909): The PAWS Act would make greater resources available to enable domestic violence victims with companion animals to escape their abusers. Currently, the bill has 246 cosponsors—over half of the entire US House of Representatives.
  • Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act (HR 1456): The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act would make it illegal to buy or sell shark fins. Approximately 73 million sharks die each year as a result of inhumane shark finning, in which the fins are removed while the shark is still conscious and the mutilated body is tossed back into the ocean to die. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has already passed its version of the bill; it is up to the House to act to end this cruelty. Currently, the bill has 233 cosponsors—more than half of the House.
  • Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act (HR 1494): The PACT Act would prohibit the heinous acts of cruelty typically found in “crush videos,” in which animals are intentionally tortured, mutilated, and killed to satisfy sadistic fetishes. Currently, the law covers only the creation and distribution of the videos, not the underlying abuse. The Senate has already unanimously passed its bill; the House should do the same. Currently, the bill has 273 cosponsors—over 60 percent of the members of the House.
  • Humane Cosmetics Act (HR 2790): The Humane Cosmetics Act would phase out inhumane and outdated animal-based testing for cosmetic products in the United States in favor of more accurate cutting-edge technologies. The legislation would eventually prohibit the sale in this country of cosmetics tested on animals in other countries, ensuring that only safe and humane products enter the American market. Currently, the bill has 169 cosponsors, more than one-third of the House.

AWI has a strong legacy of working with members of Congress from both parties to pass important animal welfare legislation. Since its founding in 1951, AWI has helped enact the Humane Slaughter Act, the Animal Welfare Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Click here to read AWI’s letter to Majority Leader McCarthy.

AWI Urges House Vote on Eliminating “Crush Video” Loophole

Six months after the Senate unanimously adopted the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act, the bill remains stalled in the US House of Representatives. In a letter issued today to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) urged him to advance this critical piece of animal welfare legislation by bringing the bill up for a full vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.

“We hope that Leader McCarthy will make this legislation a priority and schedule a vote for the House version of the bill, H.R. 1494,” said Cathy Liss, AWI president. “More than 60 percent of the House of Representatives have cosponsored this legislation, which is a sensible solution to a pressing issue in animal welfare.”

The PACT Act eliminates an unintended loophole under current law regarding “crush videos,” (i.e., videos in which individuals maliciously torture, mutilate, and kill small animals to cater to the sadistic fetishes of viewers). Current federal law bans the creation and distribution of such videos. However, the law does not address the underlying acts of animal abuse that these videos depict. If it is unclear where the abuse occurred, it can be difficult to prosecute the perpetrators under state anti-cruelty statutes. The PACT Act would extend federal jurisdiction to prohibit these heinous acts of animal cruelty while remaining consistent with other federal laws regulating animal cruelty in interstate commerce.

In its letter to McCarthy, AWI cited several other bills that have strong bipartisan support and equally deserve floor consideration:

  • Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act (HR 909): The PAWS Act would make greater resources available to enable domestic violence victims and their companion animals to escape their abusers. Currently, the bill has 248 cosponsors—more than half of the US House of Representatives.
  • Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act (HR 1456): The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act would make it illegal to buy or sell shark fins. Approximately 73 million sharks die each year for their fins—often removed while the shark is still conscious, after which the mutilated body is tossed back into the ocean to die. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has already passed its version of the bill; it is up to the House to act to end this cruelty. Currently, the bill has 238 cosponsors—more than half of the House.
  • Humane Cosmetics Act (HR 2790): The Humane Cosmetics Act would phase out inhumane and outdated animal-based testing for cosmetic products in the United States in favor of more accurate cutting-edge technologies. The legislation would eventually prohibit the sale in this country of cosmetics tested on animals in other countries, ensuring that only safe and humane products enter the American market. Currently, the bill has 173 cosponsors—more than one-third of the House.

Read AWI’s letter to Majority Leader McCarthy here.

PREPARED Act Aims to Save Animals from Natural, Man-Made Disasters

Fires, floods and earthquakes can cause intense suffering and death to the millions of animals trapped in commercial and research facilities. Today, Representatives Dina Titus (D-NV) and Peter King (R-NY) introduced the “Providing Responsible Emergency Plans for Animals at Risk of Emerging Disasters (PREPARED) Act of 2019,” which would require institutions where animals are housed to strategically plan for emergencies. The bill is endorsed by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and other national animal welfare organizations.

This legislation, first introduced in 2014 as the “Animal Emergency Planning Act,” builds on the bipartisan “Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act” of 2006, which requires state and local emergency preparedness plans to incorporate accommodations for companion animals and service animals. While this law marked a crucial step forward, it did not address commercially owned animals. The PREPARED Act would cover substantially more animals under human care.

“The lives of animals are too precious to leave to chance,” Titus said. “This bipartisan bill will ensure that zoos, commercial breeders, research facilities, and the like are prepared to keep their animals safe when disaster strikes. Sadly, we’ve learned that if these entities do not have a plan in place when an emergency hits, it is already too late. I’m grateful for the support of Representative King and the many animal advocacy organizations that are helping advance this important legislation.”

“For those who are responsible for the care and well-being of animals, it is imperative that they have an emergency plan in place when a disaster strikes,” said King. “I am proud to work with Rep. Titus on this legislation to ensure the safety of animals with a completely reasonable and simple plan.”

Specifically, the PREPARED Act mandates that entities regulated under the federal Animal Welfare Act, such as commercial animal dealers, exhibitors and research facilities, have contingency plans in place to safely evacuate and care for animals in an emergency or disaster situation. These plans also would include provisions for humane handling, treatment and transportation. Under the proposed legislation, covered entities would be required to submit their emergency plans to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) each year, and to train all employees in emergency procedures.

“Labs, zoos and other USDA-regulated facilities have an obligation to protect animals in captivity from devastating natural and man-made disasters,” said Cathy Liss, president of AWI. “These animals are at the mercy of their handlers because they have no way to escape. The PREPARED Act would ensure that no USDA-regulated facility is ever caught unprepared in a crisis — and that no animal gets left behind.”

Illinois Becomes Third State to Ban Sale of Animal-Tested Cosmetics

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and Cruelty Free International congratulate Illinois for joining California, Nevada, and more than 30 countries worldwide in banning the sale of animal-tested cosmetics. SB 241, sponsored by Senator Linda Holmes (D-Aurora) and signed by Governor J.B. Pritzker on August 9, prohibits the import or sale of any cosmetic if the final product or any ingredient was tested on animals after January 1, 2020.

More than 30 countries, many in the European Union, already prohibit cosmetics testing on animals. The United States, however, has failed to pass a nationwide ban. Last year, California became the first state to enact “humane cosmetics” legislation, followed by Nevada in June. Illinois’ new law provides additional incentives for cosmetics companies to invest in non-animal alternatives to help them stay competitive in a changing global market while sparing animals from painful tests.

Cosmetics manufacturers test their products to determine potential human hazards. Ingredients may be force-fed to rats, dripped into the eyes of rabbits, or rubbed onto the bare skin of animals for an extended period. Meanwhile, more than a dozen non-animal alternatives, such as those using human cells and tissues, are readily available and accepted by the FDA and international regulatory agencies. These testing procedures take less time and money, and the results are more applicable to humans.

“Cosmetics testing on animals is inhumane, expensive, and at odds with the laws and regulations of many countries throughout the world,” said AWI President Cathy Liss. “We appreciate that the Illinois legislature, Governor Pritzker, and consumers are taking a stand against these archaic tests that cause immeasurable suffering.”

Hundreds of successful cosmetics companies of all sizes rely on non-animal testing methods and support globally consistent standards. Besides being more responsive to evolving consumer demands, these companies recognize that non-animal testing methods make more ethical and scientific sense.

“Tragically, despite the availability of approved non-animal tests and existing ingredients that are safe for human use, we estimate that over half a million animals are still used annually in cruel and unnecessary cosmetics testing worldwide,” said Monica Engebretson, North America campaign manager for Cruelty Free International. “By ending the sale of new animal-tested cosmetics, Illinois is matching global progress and has become a national leader on this issue.”

Mystic Aquarium Does Not Need to Import Belugas to Conduct Research

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and a coalition of environmental and animal protection organizations strongly oppose Mystic Aquarium’s unprecedented request to import five captive-born beluga whales from Canada for scientific research. The whales would also be on public display and allowed to breed, raising concerns that the real purpose of this import is to perpetuate breeding for public display.

Marineland, a marine theme park in Niagara Falls, Canada, acquired the parents of these belugas from the wild—most from a population in Russia that the US government has designated as depleted. US law prohibits the import of depleted marine mammals or their descendants for public display, but has an exemption for scientific research. A new law in Canada bans the public display and breeding of cetaceans altogether, as well as their trade, but also has an exemption for scientific research.

“The laws on both sides of the border would be violated should this import occur,” said Dr. Naomi Rose, marine mammal scientist for AWI, “not because Mystic doesn’t engage in legitimate research, but because the whales would be on exhibit and allowed to produce offspring that are highly likely to go to other US public display facilities with far weaker claims to conducting bona fide research.”

Marineland’s whales were grandfathered under the new Canadian law for public display, but the country’s breeding ban still applies. Marineland hasn’t yet applied for an export permit and, given Mystic’s plans to allow breeding, may never receive one. More troubling, Mystic Aquarium and the other facilities to which it would send belugas—including Georgia Aquarium, which infamously attempted to import 18 wild-caught belugas from Russia in 2012—would be exploiting an exemption meant solely for scientific research.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) will hold a public hearing on Mystic’s permit application on Nov. 18 at 1 p.m. in the Great Hall of the Silver Spring Civic Building, 1 Veterans Place, in Silver Spring, Maryland. NOAA Fisheries will consider additional public comments submitted by the Dec. 2 deadline.

AWI has several objections to this application:

  • Three of the five whales will belong to Georgia Aquarium. After NOAA Fisheries denied its permit application to import wild-caught belugas, the aquarium challenged the decision in federal court. In 2015, the judge presiding over the case issued a scathing ruling clarifying the many ways in which the aquarium’s permit request failed to pass legal muster. It is disturbing that Mystic, a well-respected facility, would consider risking its reputation to work with Georgia Aquarium.
  • It is difficult to breed belugas in captivity. Despite decades of North American facilities cooperating to increase their captive beluga population through breeding, few calves are born and many don’t survive for long, and the population is in decline. Under their agreement, Mystic and Georgia Aquarium would allow the whales to mate and produce offspring, which could bring “new blood” to the US captive beluga breeding program—or could lead to more dead baby belugas.
  • While it would likely cost more money and take more time, conducting the proposed research at Marineland would provide a larger sample size, wouldn’t flout laws on both sides of the border, and would avoid causing stress to the animals from transport and having to adapt to a new social environment. The money saved by not transporting the whales could be used to set up the research program at Marineland.
  • With eight belugas, Mystic could actually be considered overcrowded, negating the argument that the import is partly to reduce overcrowding for these whales. Georgia Aquarium currently has five belugas, which is likely maximum capacity. Although Marineland’s belugas live in overcrowded conditions, with more than 50 belugas, transferring a mere five whales won’t fix that.

“Virtually all of the arguments against conducting research at Marineland don’t hold up to scrutiny,” Dr. Rose said. “If these facilities were truly conservation- and welfare-minded, they would not seek to get around conservation and welfare laws.”

Mystic, Georgia Aquariums Lobby Commerce Secretary for Beluga Import Permit

Lobbyists and executives for Mystic Aquarium and Georgia Aquarium used back-door politics to try to win approval for a controversial permit application to import five captive-born beluga whales from Marineland in Canada, an Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) analysis of hundreds of documents has found.

The documents, obtained by AWI under the Freedom of Information Act, show that aquarium leaders and their consultants lobbied all levels of the Department of Commerce, starting with Secretary Wilbur Ross, to try to influence the process and gain support for the import permit regardless of what the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and its implementing regulations actually allow. These high-level meetings occurred in late 2017, more than a year before Mystic formally submitted its application and two years before the public had an opportunity to comment on it.

On Friday, AWI delivered a letter to Secretary Ross, urging him and other political appointees in his department to recuse themselves from the decision-making process on the beluga import permit. As AWI notes, these records suggest that multiple high-level officials within the Department of Commerce were favorably inclined to grant the permit well before Mystic even filed its application.

Based on the documentation, it is possible that one or more of these officials – including Secretary Ross – ordered the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Protected Resources (whose career staff are responsible for reviewing and making decisions on such applications) to approve the permit regardless of the facts or the law. If so, this would amount to unlawful predetermined federal decision-making. It also appears that multiple lobbying firms involved in this effort disregarded federal reporting requirements (see Attachment E).

“Such an intense level of lobbying for a captive marine mammal permit under the MMPA is unprecedented,” said Dr. Naomi Rose, AWI’s marine mammal scientist, who has more than 25 years of experience advocating for captive marine mammal welfare. “These records point to a corrupted process where lower-level employees could be pressured to approve this application despite what is best for these whales and permissible under the law.”

In December, AWI, joined by a dozen other environmental and animal protection organizations, submitted comments to the Office of Protected Resources strongly opposed to Mystic’s permit application. Mystic claims that scientific research is the primary purpose of the import, with public display as “incidental.” Yet these whales would permanently be on public display and allowed to breed, raising concerns that the real purpose of this import is to perpetuate the captive beluga population for public display in the United States.

Mystic Aquarium’s emphasis on the research component is a necessary distinction, since these whales are descendants of a population of wild belugas in the Sea of Okhotsk that was designated as depleted in 2016. Animals from a depleted population can only be imported for research or conservation (not public display) under the MMPA. In 2012, Georgia Aquarium attempted to acquire 18 wild-caught belugas from this same population in Russia before it was designated depleted. That permit request was denied by NMFS, and a federal judge upheld the government’s decision in 2015.

While Mystic has attempted to downplay Georgia Aquarium’s involvement in its application, the permit would allow Georgia Aquarium to receive three of the five belugas under specific circumstances. According to documents reviewed by AWI, Georgia Aquarium is heavily invested in this permit being approved.

NMFS has not yet made a decision on the import permit. At latest check, Canada, which last year banned the public display and breeding of cetaceans altogether, has not yet received an application to export these belugas from Marineland. Under its laws, Canada could allow the export for research, but not for public display.

AWI analyzed correspondence that covered the period from January 2015 through May 2019. Among the highlights:

  • Sept. 8, 2017: Lobbyist Robert L. Dilenschneider addresses Secretary Ross familiarly as “Wilbur” and asks him to meet with Mystic CEO Steve Coan, then-Georgia Aquarium CEO Mike Leven, and Georgia Aquarium founder Bernie Marcus (the co-founder of Home Depot and one of President Trump’s biggest donors). In his e-mail, Dilenschneider misrepresents the beluga import as a rescue effort and refers to the requirements of the MMPA as an obscure regulation: “Right now some obscure regulation stands in the way that we know you can deal with quickly,” Dilenschneider writes (see Attachment C). Subsequent documents confirm that Ross and Earl Comstock, his then-director of policy and strategic planning, met with Coan and Leven on Oct. 18, 2017.
  • Nov. 28, 2017: Lobbyist Jason Reese follows up on his request for a meeting with lobbyists from three firms to discuss the Mystic permit with Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, who had recently stepped into the role as acting undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NMFS’ parent agency. In a subsequent e-mail, Reese writes that the goal of the meeting is to “hopefully earn [Gallaudet’s] support, similar to that of the Secretary and Mr. Comstock” (see Attachment D-6).
  • Nov. 29, 2017: Brianne Szczepanek, chief of staff for NMFS (also known as NOAA Fisheries) responds to a colleague inquiring about the lobbyists’ request to meet with Gallaudet. “The general issue of importing endangered species for public display can be a lightning rod,” Szczepanek writes, before recommending that the meeting be delegated to NMFS, whose Office of Protected Resources deals with MMPA permits, since the lobbyists had already met with Ross and Comstock (see Attachment D-5). The next day, Emma Htun, a regulatory program advisor at NMFS, wrote to a colleague: “I chatted a bit more with Brianne and Alan about this and we’d like to try for a different approach. We would suggest that RDML Gallaudet take this meeting” (see Attachment D-7).
  • Dec. 14, 2018: Donna Wieting, director of the Office of Protected Resources, responds to one of her staffers, who noted that Mystic had submitted its draft permit application on November 16, 2018, for a courtesy review. “Given the elevation of this to political,” Wieting states that she would like to set up a briefing with a lead staffer before “we get back to Mystic” (see Attachment B-4).

Envigo Settlement Is First Step in Addressing Company’s Abysmal Animal Welfare Record

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) is grateful that thousands of dogs will be rescued from abusive conditions following a settlement reached Thursday between the federal government and Envigo, a company that breeds and sells animals for laboratory experimentation.

The consent decree, approved by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, permanently prohibits Envigo (a subsidiary of Inotiv, a multinational company that owns more than 60,000 animals) from conducting any further operations at its Cumberland, Virginia, facility that require an Animal Welfare Act (AWA) license. The decree incorporates a transfer plan under which all dogs remaining at the facility will be transferred within approximately 60 days to a variety of shelters. Envigo will provide funds for each shelter to facilitate the care and adoption of these dogs. While the decree resolves the civil claims against Envigo in the government’s complaint, it does not prohibit criminal prosecution at any point. Unfortunately, it also does not prevent Envigo from simply reconstituting its Cumberland practices—whether elsewhere in Virginia or outside the Commonwealth.

“Envigo has displayed a callous indifference to even the bare-minimum animal welfare standards, said AWI President Cathy Liss. “Despite its extensive documentation of abuse, the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) refused for more than 10 months to enforce the AWA. While this settlement closes a painful chapter, we are concerned for the tens of thousands of animals at other Inotiv facilities.

Liss added: “It is incumbent upon APHIS to thoroughly evaluate every Inotiv facility through the use of unannounced inspections, given the company’s abysmal animal welfare record, documented in multiple undercover investigations by animal protection groups.”

In May, federal district court Judge Norman Moon granted the extraordinary relief requested by the U.S. Department of Justice to immediately halt and rectify the AWA violations by the Virginia dog breeding facility. Last month, Judge Moon denied Envigo’s request that it be permitted to continue business operations by selling about 2,200 of the abused beagles—mostly to overseas customers—into next year.

Since July 2021, USDA inspectors have documented more than 60 citations alleging AWA violations at the facility. Among them: Envigo failed to investigate 300 puppy deaths over a seven-month period; food was deliberately withheld from nursing mothers; dogs were euthanized rather than treated, even for minor injuries, and were euthanized by intracardiac injection without anesthesia; 48 dogs were injured and three died from fight wounds; animals were crowded into small, filthy, sweltering cages with food covered in insects and feces; and there was inadequate staffing, including only one full-time veterinarian to attend to thousands of dogs.

Virginia politicians have denounced the beagle supplier, prompting legislative action; in April, the state enacted multiple animal welfare laws intended to better protect dogs and cats bred for research. In May, after APHIS refused to act, the DOJ sued Envigo for violating the AWA and, joined by the Commonwealth of Virginia, seized 446 animals after veterinarians determined that the dogs were “in acute distress.”

On June 13, Inotiv announced that it would shutter the Cumberland facility. At the time, Inotiv reassured investors that the “restructuring and optimization plan” was driven by business considerations, since the cost of needed improvements was not justified by the meager 1% of Inotiv’s total revenue generated by that facility. Inotiv currently holds tens of thousands of monkeys, pigs, rabbits, rodents, and more at its other sites.

Beagles are often bred for sale for experimental purposes because they are small, short-haired, and docile. Envigo’s dogs have been used by researchers at universities, major drugmakers, the National Institutes of Health, and the US Food and Drug Administration. Entities that use Envigo or Inotiv animals for their research should ensure that the animals receive humane treatment—both for the welfare of the animals and the integrity of the research.

“Clearly, these dogs had grossly inadequate care, and they suffered immensely as a result,” Liss said. “Raising animals under these conditions also introduces health-related variables that can skew the results obtained if they are subject to research or testing, calling into question the outcomes.”

Envigo is just the latest example of the USDA’s persistent failure to protect animals, despite extensive documentation of abuse, in deference to business interests. In October 2021, a USDA administrative law judge permanently revoked the license of Moulton Chinchilla Ranch (MCR) in Minnesota after the department had cited MCR for more than 100 violations dating back to 2013. These included animals’ eyes crusted, sealed, swollen shut, bleeding, and oozing fluid; collars embedded in animals’ necks; protruding bones; soiled food; and green drinking water. Yet the USDA failed to confiscate a single chinchilla during this time, and, in 2019, actually helped Moulton with the paperwork to renew his license.

Less than a month later, the USDA revoked the license of Iowa dog breeder Daniel Gingerich, but only after the DOJ filed a complaint for injunctive relief. In 2021 alone, 25 inspection reports exceeding a total of 200 pages contained more than 200 citations against Gingerich. Among the egregious findings, multiple dogs were observed suffering from severe heat stress, with labored breathing and crying out, while others had no potable water.

Help Former Lab Animals This Giving Tuesday

November 29 is Giving Tuesday—a global day of giving that offers the perfect opportunity during the holiday season to contribute to a better world. This year, the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) is raising funds to help worthy rescue organizations care for and rehabilitate former laboratory animals.

We ask that you join us by donating on November 29 to help animals used in research experiments get a second chance at life. Animals released from laboratories are often in desperate need of socialization and proper enrichment, along with requiring food, shelter, and regular veterinary care. Our goal this year is to raise $30,000. To double your impact, AWI will match the first $10,000 donated to this campaign.

Donate Now

Earlier this year, the rescue and adoption of nearly 4,000 beagles from abusive conditions at an Envigo breeding facility in Virginia made national headlines, yet many other animals formerly used in research are also in urgent need of refuge, including rabbits, primates, and mice. It is estimated that more than 100 million mice and rats as well as about 800,000 other warm-blooded animals are used each year for experimentation, testing, and teaching in the United States.

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the primary federal law that protects animals in research, yet mice, rats, and birds—who account for the vast majority of animals used in research—are excluded. AWI continues to advocate greater protection of animals in laboratories, in part through stronger enforcement of the AWA and extension of the law’s coverage to additional species subject to experimentation.

From rats to macaques, many laboratory animals live alone in relatively barren cages that offer nothing similar to the complexity of the species’ natural environment, leading to anxiety, depression, and abnormal behaviors.

In contrast, rats who are rehomed can have the opportunity to explore, play, and forage. Primates released from labs can thrive at sanctuaries—climbing on tree branches, splashing in water pools, chewing on pumpkins, and grooming their companions.

Will you join us in giving them a second chance by donating on November 29? All online donations made during the week of Giving Tuesday (November 27–December 3, 2022) will automatically be designated to give these animals the love and care that they deserve. Here are some examples of your donations at work helping animals released from research labs:

  • A $20 donation will provide bedding for a rat for four months.
  • A $50 donation will buy five weeks of fresh greens for a rabbit.
  • A $150 donation will provide enough hay to feed a sheep for a year.
  • A $500 donation will buy three new cages and necessary enrichment furnishings to house a dozen mice.
  • A $1,000 donation will provide initial veterinary care and diagnostic tests for an incoming monkey.
  • A $5,000 donation will buy an outdoor enclosure for new monkey arrivals to explore and play.

Donate Now

If you have already donated to AWI or are a regular contributor, please accept our heartfelt thanks. Without generous contributors like you, our work to protect animals would not be possible.

Rest assured, your funds are always used wisely: Furthermore, we put your contributions to effective use—AWI consistently earns top ratings from independent charity watchdog Charity Navigator. Additionally, for the third consecutive year, we were named the top animal charity by the personal finance website WalletHub.

ADDITIONAL WAYS TO HELP THIS GIVING TUESDAY:

Please contact awi@awionline.org with any questions.

AWI Refinement Grant Winners Seek Solutions to Improve the Welfare of Animals in Research Laboratories

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) recently awarded Refinement Grants to four individuals who are developing or testing new and creative ways to improve the welfare of animals 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. Each year, AWI awards individual grants of up to $10,000 to develop and demonstrate innovative methods of refinement to the housing or care of animals in research to better their lives. This year’s grantees are:

  • Jouvay Pantophlet, laboratory animal technician at CUNY’s College of Staten Island, for assessing whether recycled newspaper pulp used to create burrowing structures for naked mole rats is safe for the animals long-term.
  • Lace Lively, senior research assistant at Texas Biomedical Research Institute, for studying compassion fatigue among laboratory animal professionals who work with nonhuman primates housed alone or in social groups.
  • Maya Bodnar, research assistant at the University of British Columbia, for investigating the use of lower concentrations of isoflurane, an inhalant anesthetic, administered using the drop method and paired with a sedative to limit distress caused by the induction of anesthesia in mice used in research.
  • Raymond Vagell, doctoral candidate at Texas State University, for evaluating the stress response of captive ruffed lemurs during cognitive tests using saliva samples instead of invasive blood draws.

Applications for the 2023 Refinement grant cycle will be available starting in August.

AWI Awards $70,000 to Lab Animal Sanctuaries After Giving Tuesday Campaign

Following the most successful Giving Tuesday fundraiser in recent memory, the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) has awarded $70,000 to three sanctuaries that provide socialization, veterinary care, enrichment activities, and more for animals previously used in research.

With your generous support, AWI raised more than $58,000 during November’s Giving Tuesday campaign—nearly doubling our initial goal of $30,000. AWI provided an additional contribution of more than $10,000, allowing us to distribute a total of $70,000 to give these animals a second chance at life.

From rats to macaques, many animals in laboratories live alone in relatively barren cages that offer nothing similar to the complexity of the species’ natural environment, leading to anxiety, depression, and abnormal behaviors.

In contrast, rats who are rehomed have the opportunity to explore, play, and forage. Primates released from labs can thrive at sanctuaries—climbing on tree branches, splashing in water pools, chewing on pumpkins, and grooming their companions.

The organizations we have funded are:

  • New Life Animal Sanctuary in Lake Elsinore, CA, received $25,000 to help rescue and rehabilitate former lab animals, including pigs and rabbits, and is the only sanctuary for rodents used in research.
  • Primates Incorporated of Westfield, WI, received $25,000 to offer a sustainable and spacious indoor/outdoor sanctuary for monkeys coming from research facilities, private homes, and the entertainment industry.
  • Peaceable Primate Sanctuary of Winamac, IN, received $20,000 to provide fresh, healthy diets, dynamic social groups, veterinary care, and daily enrichment to baboons and macaques who were rescued from university labs, roadside zoos, and private ownership.

AWI is deeply grateful to those who donated so that these animals can live out the rest of their days in a happier, healthier environment.