(Beth Clifton collage)
There are ways to cut back on lab animal use, but just cutting science budgets is not one of them
by Morgan V. Sage
[Morgan V. Sage, a longtime ANIMALS 24-7 reader and close observer of biomedical research, offers the following commentary on the issues raised by our May 4, 2025 article “Is NIH under Trump really replacing animal testing, or just axing research?”]
(Beth Clifton collage)
The 3Rs framework & policy context
The “3Rs” – Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement – are guiding principles for minimizing animal use and suffering in research while improving scientific quality.
First articulated in 1959 by Charles Russell and Rex Burch, the “3Rs” call for replacing sentient animals with non-animal methods where possible, reducing the number of animals used, and refining procedures to lessen pain or distress.
Today the 3Rs are embedded in many national laws and guidelines and in research best practices. Advocates for the 3Rs approach emphasize that non-animal research methods often yield data more relevant to humans.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Current initiatives & funding landscape
Major biomedical funders have begun to prioritize human-relevant, non-animal-using approaches. The National Institutes of Health [NIH], for instance, in April 2025 announced creation of the Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application (ORIVA) with a mandate to “develop, validate, and scale” human-based methods as alternatives to animal studies.
The NIH pledged to “expand funding and training in non-animal approaches,” add review criteria prioritizing human-relevance, and publicly report annually on funding shifts from animal to human-based research.
These steps build on recent NIH advisory activities, including that a 2024 advisory committee report on catalyzing non-animal methods was adopted, and a new program, Complement-ARIE, was launched to accelerate development and validation of non-animal methods.
Similarly, the FDA has signaled shifts toward human-based testing, for example phasing out animal requirements for certain biologics.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Money talks
Outside of government, non-profit centers also drive 3Rs acceptance. The United Kingdom’s NC3Rs – funded by government – has an annual budget around £7 million and has awarded over £35 million for 3Rs projects since 2004.
Johns Hopkins’ Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing similarly offers funding and resources for 3Rs research and publishes the peer-reviewed journal ALTEX, focused on alternatives to animal research.
Several U.S. agencies, including the NIH, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Defense, and industry consortia in the toxicology and pharmaceutical arena, have also allocated internal budgets to develop and use non-animal methods.
(Beth Clifton collage)
But most biomedical research remains animal-based
Philanthropic funders have a role as well. The International Foundation for Ethical Research explicitly supports alternative method development.
Despite these efforts, most biomedical research still relies on animal studies. The NIH still devotes a substantial share of its multi-billion dollar budget to animal-based grants.
Overall, the state of 3Rs research is mixed. Many promising technologies and policies are emerging, but they are still a small part of the overall biomedical enterprise.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Funding responsibility and trends
Public research agencies including the NIH, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Food & Drug Administration, and the National Science Foundation have traditionally underwritten much biomedical research and development, including animal studies.
Many analysts argue these agencies should likewise allocate meaningful funding specifically for 3Rs research.
In the United Kingdom and European Union, governments finance national 3Rs centers and require regulators to consider alternatives in testing programs.
Industry also has a strong incentive to support 3Rs research. Non-animal methods can reduce late-stage drug failures and testing costs, so pharmaceutical, chemical, and consumer product makers invest in in 3Rs approaches.
(Beth Clifton collage)
3Rs research is underfunded
Some universities allocate institutional funds for developing human-relevant models or improving animal welfare, but these contributions are modest.
Experts note that 3Rs research is underfunded relative to its importance, urging a broader funding base.
In short, while NIH and similar bodies currently lead funding, fulfilling the potential of the 3Rs likely requires shared responsibility among governments, industry, nonprofits, and academia.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Accountability of public institutions (NIH and others)
Because agencies like the National Institutes of Health are funded by taxpayers, there is a strong public interest in how effectively they drive ethical and effective science.
The NIH signaled a new role as a coordinator of 3Rs innovation by placing the new Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application (ORIVA) in NIH director’ Jay Bhattacharya’s office to “coordinate NIH-wide efforts” on non-animal methods and to “serve as a hub for interagency coordination and regulatory translation.”
The NIH also says it plans to train grant reviewers to recognize and mitigate “animal methods bias,” to ensure that grant peer review itself does not unduly favor traditional animal models.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Metrics & oversight
Public accountability can be reinforced by metrics and oversight. The NIH press release announcing the formation of ORIVA explicitly committed to annual public reporting on spending, tracking reductions in animal-based funding and increases in human-based methods.
Such transparency allows Congress and the public to see whether promises translate into budgetary shifts.
Congress could further hold agencies accountable by requiring set-asides or milestones for 3Rs progress.
Yet the broader context is in flux. Major proposals to restructure NIH and slash its budget have been floated in the U.S. budget process, including a plan to collapse the NIH’s 27 institutes into five and cut NIH funding from $47 billion in 2025 to $27 billion in 2026.
(PETA photo)
Pressure to make NIH more efficient
Although these proposals are preliminary and controversial, they illustrate pressure to make NIH more efficient. Skeptics worry that under tight budgets, agencies might tout the 3Rs as a cost-saving measure rather than a science-driven priority.
In this climate, oversight by Congress, scientific advisory panels, and the public is vital to ensure 3Rs initiatives are evidence-based and fully funded, not just lip service.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Measuring progress: metrics & outcomes
To judge progress in the 3Rs, stakeholders stress the need for clear metrics. Possible measures include:
- Animal use statistics: Annual counts of animals used in research (by species and purpose) can track reduction over time. Some companies already calculate “animal savings” from new methods (altex.org).
- Funding allocation: The NIH commitment to report spending shifts (nih.gov) is one example – tracking what fraction of grants or dollars go to human-based vs animal-based research.
- Number of validated non-animal methods: Regulatory acceptance of alternatives signals replacement progress.
- Translational success rates: Improvement in drug development pipeline success or predictive accuracy could reflect better preclinical modeling.
- Publication and workforce indicators: Growth in NAM-related research publications, patents, and trained professionals signals capacity building.
- Refinement indices: Adoption of welfare-improving refinements (like imaging or anesthesia protocols) could be surveyed by institutions or the Institutional Animal Care & Use Committees required of federally funded animal-using laboratories by the Animal Welfare Act.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Divergent perspectives on NIH’s 3Rs initiative
Reactions to the recent NIH steps toward emphasizing non-animal methods illustrate contrasting views.
Advocacy groups like the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine [PCRM] hail ORIVA and related actions as long overdue and transformative. PCRM calls the NIH pledge to “prioritize human-based science” a “historic announcement” and a “big win for animals and human health,” pointing out that animal experiments “come at a grave cost.”
PCRM notes that NIH has “steadily increased” investment in non-animal methods, but still has far to go.
In contrast, some researchers and industry groups are cautious.
(Beth Clifton collage)
NABR continues to defend animal-based research
For example, the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), representing laboratories and biotech since 1979, welcomed innovation but warned that “no AI model or simulation has yet demonstrated the ability to fully replicate all the unknowns about many full biological systems.”
Similarly, many scientists note that although animals are imperfect models, they remain necessary in some fields until alternatives are validated. Some fear that mandating reduction targets too aggressively could inadvertently impede research progress if suitable alternatives are not yet available for certain studies.
Another line of critique focuses on motive. Skeptics ask whether NIH’s 3Rs emphasis is a science-driven initiative or a byproduct of budget pressure.
NIH has not disclosed ORIVA’s budget or staff, fueling uncertainty. If major funding cuts occur, critics worry Congress or agency leadership might force researchers to use fewer animals as a budget-saving measure, rather than a carefully planned pivot.
Defenders point out that the 3Rs effort predates the budget debate, and argue that moving toward more effective science should be a priority in any case.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Future potential & public good considerations
Framed as a public good, 3Rs research yields wide benefits if properly supported.
Potential beneficiaries include patients, scientists, taxpayers, and – critically – animals.
Conversely, the costs involve up-front investment in new technologies, training of researchers in new methods, and possible short-term slowdowns as fields adapt.
These costs must be weighed against the current “hidden” costs of animal research: failed drugs, translational failures, and ethical harms.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Think of science as a garden
So who bears the responsibility—especially under fiscal constraint––for funding non-animal methods research?
Think of science as a big garden. Until now, everyone believed the public gardeners––the government––were responsible for planting and watering the seeds of new, kinder ways to test medicines.
But now, people are arguing, rightly or wrongly, that there is not enough water (money), so the government gardeners might walk away or water less.
That means the job of growing this garden—making sure these new ways keep improving—might fall to private gardeners: drug companies, charities, and donors.
But not all of them care about the same plants. Some want to grow what makes them the most money. Some may care deeply. Others might not help at all.
So the question becomes: If the public gardeners walk away, will the private gardeners grow a safe, `healthy garden—or just the plants they profit from?
(Beth Clifton collage)
Governance & risk-shifting
There is a governance and risk-shifting issue that lies at the heart of U.S. biomedical research policy during fiscal contraction.
Non-animal research methods represent public goods: knowledge-generating tools whose benefits are widespread, but whose development costs are front-loaded, uncertain, and often slow to generate profit.
Historically, these have been subsidized by public-sector investment.
With U.S. federal budget cuts, particularly in a climate of bipartisan pressure to reduce deficits, we are seeing:
- Disinvestment from upstream research and development;
- Privatization of responsibility for innovation,
- Growing reliance on venture-backed biotech, pharma consortia, and philanthropies.
(Beth Clifton collage)
New risk dynamics
This creates new risk dynamics:
- Market-driven non-animal methods research might only focus on diseases with potential for high return of investment, leaving neglected conditions behind.
- Data ownership will become privatized, restricting open validation and reproducibility.
- Non-animal methods aligned with regulatory or commercial endpoints will be prioritized; development of exploratory, basic science non-animal methods may stall.
Also involved is implicitly asking whether this risk shift undermines the moral and scientific case for non-animal methods—which was originally rooted in collective responsibility for ethical science.
If the public sector retreats, we may see not only the failure of non-animal methods per se, but a fragmentation of purpose, slowing of systemic change, and inequality in what gets developed.
The ethical governance of science—once a public trust—risks becoming a competitive asset class.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Budget cuts
The budget cuts initiated by the Donald Trump administration, with support from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, are poised to significantly alter the landscape of laboratory animal use and the development of non-animal research methods in the United States.
These cuts, particularly the reduction of indirect cost funding from the National Institutes of Health, have sparked widespread concern among researchers and institutions.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Impact on laboratory animal use
The NIH’s decision to cap indirect cost reimbursements at 15%—down from previous rates that often exceeded 50%—has placed immense financial strain on research institutions.
These indirect costs are crucial for maintaining animal research facilities, covering expenses such as housing, care, and compliance with regulatory standards.
Without adequate funding, institutions may be forced to euthanize animals or halt ongoing studies, disrupting critical research efforts.
Already these cuts have led to significant job losses and the suspension of various research programs, including those related to COVID-19.
The sudden financial shortfall has left many laboratories unable to sustain their animal populations, leading to ethical and logistic challenges.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Broader implications
The budget cuts reflect a broader trend of deprioritizing scientific research within the federal agenda. Dismantling programs and reducing funding not only impacts current research but also has long-term consequences for scientific innovation and public health.
The scientific community has expressed concern that these actions could undermine the United States’ position as a leader in biomedical research.
The Trump administration’s budget cuts, supported by initiatives like DOGE, are reshaping the research landscape by reducing federal support for both laboratory animal use and development of non-animal methods.
Beth & Merritt Clifton.
(Gene Chontos photo)
This shift places greater responsibility on private entities, potentially altering the focus and accessibility of future scientific research.
Please donate to support our work:
www.animals24-7.org/donate/
The post What if the Trump administration is serious about ending lab animal use? appeared first on Animals 24-7.
