On April 1, the Trump administration's efforts to cut government funds arrived in Morgantown, W.Va. There, federal scientists spent their days studying the health and safety threats to American workers. That morning, hundreds of employees at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health were notified that they had been fired and would lose access to the building.
More than 900 lab animals remained. The institute was ultimately able to send about two thirds of them (mainly mice and a small number of mice) to the university lab, according to the two facility employees who were recently fired. However, the remaining 300 animals were euthanized last week.
Over the past few months, the Trump administration has aimed to become an American research company, fired many federal scientists, withdrawn active research grants, and proposed funding to help labs stay on the lights.
These moves have freed many scientists from their work and disrupt clinical research, but have had a profound impact on lab animals, which serve as the basis for many of the country's biomedical research.
“There will be a lot of animals that will be sacrificed – they will be killed,” he said of the use of non-animal alternatives in research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Experts said that it is difficult to predict the ultimate sacrifice, as much of the regime's actions are caught up in legal battles. Animal research is also hidden in secret. There is no definitive number regarding the number of animals living in US laboratories.
Many scientists have been reluctant to openly talk about what will happen to animals in their lab, fearing backlash from animal rights activists or retaliation from their employers or the Trump administration. Dozens of interview requests with animal research facilities and researchers were not answered.
“Because it's a horrible parade for them,” Dr. Rock said. “If they keep animals, it will be very expensive. If they sacrifice animals, it will cause public rage.”
Some animal rights activists are rooting for the confusion, even if it means euthanizing the animal. But many researchers said they were devastated by what they thought was the worst in both worlds. Many animals die without scientific knowledge.
“We don't use animals lightly,” said pulmonary toxicologist Kyle Mandler, who was among the recently completed scientists from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At the time, he was in the middle of research into the dangerous dust produced in the production of certain construction materials. About 20 of his mice were euthanized last week. This study is unfinished and no data has been collected.
“The fact that their lives and sacrifices are totally wasted is depressing and infuriating in the equal parts,” he said.
The Department of Health and Human Services did not directly answer questions about the fate of Morgantown animals. However, in an email statement, an unnamed HHS official said the changes at NIOSH are part of a “broader reorganization” and that multiple programs are being integrated into the new administration for a healthy US.
“Staffing and operational coordination are occurring in stages,” the statement said. “The animal care business continues to operate and HHS is committed to maintaining compliance with all federal animal welfare standards through this transition.”
Sudden halt
In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have begun to move away from animal research. This is expensive and morally bothers me, and is not a good predictor of what happens in humans all the time. This month, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that it had planned to “step” animal testing for certain types of drugs and promote the use of alternatives such as organoids and “organs on the chips,” including three-dimensional models of human organs made from lab-grown cells.
Experts agree that these emerging technologies hold great promises. However, for now, at least for now, lab animals are an important part of biomedical research and some say that certain types of data cannot be collected in other ways.
“We want to get ourselves out of this work,” said Naomi Charalanbakis, director of science policy and communications in America, for a nonprofit advocate for the continued use of animals in biomedical research. “But we're not there yet.”
Research on laboratory animals that often take years to plan and implement requires stable, predictable funding and experienced veterinarians and technicians to provide daily care. The moves made by the Trump administration question all of this.
For example, at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Morgantown facility, the sudden termination initially included animal care staff. “But they fought back and said they didn't leave while the animals were in the facility,” the former lab technician said.
After the Trump administration began freeze funds at Harvard this month, researchers who developed a new tuberculosis vaccine faced the prospect of having to euthanize rhesus macaques. This study and monkeys were only spared after private donors intervened to provide funding.
Animals in closed projects may also be moved to other labs and institutions, but other animals may already be undergoing experimental treatment or exposed to pathogens or toxins. Many of them are kept to demonstrate certain behavioral or health vulnerabilities, and lab animals are not in the wild and simply cannot be released. And the sudden surge in excess of laboratory animals may be more than the country's animal sanctuaries can absorb, experts said.
Anne Linder, associate director of the Animal Law and Policy Program at Harvard Law School, worries that the fate of many lab animals will be reduced to the “whims and temperament” of individual researchers and lab employees.
“Without supervision, some of these decisions are poor decisions, and many are made from ruthless needs, regardless of the welfare of the animal in question,” she said in an email.
Cost reduction
Many researchers also said they were concerned about the National Institutes of Health's efforts to sharply limit “indirect costs” funding related to scientific research, including those related to maintaining animal care facilities.
A federal judge banned the NIH from putting these fund caps in place, but the agency appealed. If policies have passed, it could be devastating for institutions that use non-human primates to conduct research.
The Washington National Center for Research on Primates, based at the University of Washington, has more than 800 non-human primates. The indirect funding cap costs around $5 million a year, forcing the colony to shrink, according to Deborah Fuller, the center's director.
“It could destroy the entire infrastructure we've built,” she said.
If that happens, the center will make every effort to find a new home for the animal, she added. However, other research centers face the same challenges, and primate sanctuaries may not be able to absorb the influx.
As a last resort, primates may need to be euthanized. “This is the worst case scenario,” said Sally Thompson Iritani, assistant deputy director of the university's research department. “Even if all of us like to think about it, we have to talk about it, but it can happen.”
For some animal rights activists, reducing federal animal research companies is something to celebrate. “For many of these animals, euthanizing them before they are experimented is probably the best scenario,” said Justin Goodman, senior vice president of the White Court Waste Project, a nonprofit defending the end of federally funded animal research. (The organization would prefer to have lab animals placed in new homes, he pointed out.)
Deluciana Winder, who directs the Institute for Animal Law and Policy at Vermont's Law and Graduate School, said he hopes these cuts will spell the end of the National Primate Center. But she said she is worried that the USDA cuts and layoffs that enforce federal animal welfare laws will undermine “already very loose surveillance” of lab animal welfare.
Dr. Locke hopes the crisis could become a “wakening call” for the nation to move further towards an alternative to animal research. But that transition should happen in a thoughtful way, he said.
“I don't think it's okay to cull millions of animals from research,” Dr. Locke said. “I don't think it's socially acceptable. I don't think it's scientifically acceptable. I think we need to realize that it's a likely outcome.”
