Early in my career as a science journalist, I visited a primate research laboratory that was running an experiment to understand the effects of air pollution on children.
Young rhesus monkeys, serving as the proxy for young humans, were housed in large glass-walled containers infused with smoggy, poisonous air. In the box closest to me, two little monkeys moved out of the gray cloud to press themselves against the outer walls, their tiny hands flat against the glass.
I froze like a woman at the jagged end of an electrical shock, staring at the trapped animals and their small, hopeful faces. That moment shaped the way I still think about animal research: Although such studies have provided us with often invaluable information, we have to find a better, more decent path to scientific discovery.
This occurred about 40 years ago. And it’s been almost 20 years since the National Academy of Sciences suggested that a better approach was possible, praising nascent technologies that could not only reduce the use of animals in certain types of research but would be smarter and less expensive.
In 2025, it’s fair to state that the research community did not leap on the opportunity to reform its use of animals. Animal activists provide a litany of painful examples to emphasize that point. To name a few: A Harvard lab studying facial recognition took baby monkeys from their mothers and “modified” their ability to see, at one point even suturing shut the eyelids of two baby monkeys. A Department of Agriculture study infected kittens with parasites, partly by forcing them to eat raw flesh from other cats. A National Institutes of Health laboratory deliberately sickened beagles with pathogenic bacteria to study lethal infections.
We may have finally reached a moment of change regarding such research. Those three studies have been shut down by Trump administration decisions. The U.S.D.A. study was shuttered in 2019 during Donald Trump’s first presidential term; the beagle lab was shut down and monkey studies defunded after he returned to office in January of this year. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services, has urged a reduction in animal research.
In late September, the N.I.H.’s director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, announced the creation of a center focused on one of the more promising technologies that could provide an alternative to animal testing. The Standardized Organoid Modeling Center will increase the use of human cells, grown on silicone or plastic chips, to make miniature replicas of organs. These “organs on a chip” can then be used for safety and efficiency testing of drugs and industrial compounds.
Not surprisingly in our angst-ridden political times, speculation about motives is rife. “Is Trump doing the right thing on animal research for the wrong reasons?” asked a Vox article this spring. There’s suspicion that this is just part of the Trump administration’s general anti-science agenda, another way to dismantle laboratories and cast scientists in the role of villains, further undermining public support of science.
“I don’t care about motives,” said Justin Goodman, senior vice president for advocacy and public policy at the White Coat Waste Project, which seeks to end government funding of animal research. “I care about outcomes.” His group has worked with controversial figures like Laura Loomer to amplify the idea that, as Ms. Loomer put it, our “taxpayer dollars are used for animal torture.”
The goal, Mr. Goodman insists, is not political. It’s about protecting helpless animals. We’re in a moment, he said, “that we should not let slip away.”
Let’s not let political polarization blind us to the end game: a reduction in the use of animals in research. Animal research has saved countless lives, but a concerted federal push to reduce its use and support reasonable alternatives is long overdue. After all, some 90 percent of drugs that appear safe in test animals fail in human trials, a reminder that other species aren’t necessarily good models of human systems.
Even before the N.I.H. announced its planned center, alternatives to animal testing were showing promise, especially when it came to assessing the safety and efficacy of drugs, food additives and other chemical compounds. Such so-called toxicity testing may account for up to half of studies involving animal research, meaning that new technological alternatives could have a big impact.
This is where the “organs on a chip” might come in. One recently designed chip, made to imitate features of a human liver, detected potentially dangerous compounds with nearly 90 percent accuracy. Even one of the top global suppliers of research animals to laboratories, Charles River, is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a new division to explore animal testing alternatives. Computer modeling enhanced by artificial intelligence may further improve the accuracy of these methods.
This does not mean science is ready to eliminate all animal research. Many animal studies, such as ones that look at treating depression, managing pain or understanding diseases like cancer, are still not easily replaceable with technological alternatives. Thedevelopment of immunotherapies to treat cancer depended on the scientists working with active immune systems in living animals. Our ability to replace failing organs with healthy ones, including the ability to keep our bodies from rejecting the new parts, was built on animal studies as well. Such medical research not only saves human lives but it saves animal lives as well.
Dr. Bhattacharya appears to be walking a careful line at the N.I.H. While the agency is encouraging research into alternatives, it is still supporting traditional animal experiments. Such accommodation infuriates those who take an absolutist stand, leading Ms. Loomer to recently describe Dr. Bhattacharya a liar complicit in harming cats and dogs.
Moments of change rarely please everyone. But if you believe, as I do, that reducing reliance on test animals is a good thing, there’s a case for newfound optimism. Governmental policy, research achievements and financial incentives have at last brought us closer to that long-promised more humane path to scientific discovery.
Deborah Blum, winner of a 1992 Pulitzer Prize for reporting on animal research, is the author of “The Monkey Wars” and is at work on a book about female poisoners.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post Can Trump End This Impossibly Cruel Practice? appeared first on New York Times.
