BSC September Newsletter
Ridglan Farms’ problems in August, a devil’s advocate interview with ChatGPT about alternatives to animal testing, the rise of genetically engineered pigs for organ transplants, and rethinking how we discuss animals in science.
The Better Science Campaign (BSC), is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing a scientific paradigm that benefits all and protects the vulnerable.
BSC promotes ethical alternatives to animal testing, focusing on collaboration with researchers willing to transition to humane practices. Unlike some groups, we avoid confrontational tactics and emphasize respectful dialogue. Our mission is to work with ethical scientists to eliminate cruel and wasteful animal experiments, prioritizing methods that respect all sentient beings and improve human health. Currently, our efforts are focused on the University of California, Berkeley.
Ridglan Farms This Month: Buyer list from 2022-2025 released, Ridglan Farms’ Lawsuit Against Dane4Dogs’ awaits Judge’s Decision to Dismiss or Progress With the Case, and Dane County Board of Supervisors Introduces Resolution to Remove Dogs from Ridglan
By Ismael Perez,
Digital Marketing Specialist for the Better Science Campaign
Graph from of Rise for Animals
Rise for Animals and The Marty Project obtained government records between January 2022 and mid-2025 of institutions that have purchased dogs from Ridglan Farms. Between January 2022 and mid-2025, Ridglan sold more than 6,800 dogs. According to a graph by Rise for Animals, Ridglan’s sales appear to be declining every year since at least 2022.
According to Dane4Dogs’ website, which has tracked Ridglan’s lawsuit against Dane4Dogs, “The judge will decide whether to dismiss the case against the remaining defendants (Dane4Dogs, Robinson, Hagenow).” Robinson and Hagenow are both cofounders of Dane4Dogs. Initially, Ridglan’s lawsuit was against the cofounders and a former Ridglan Farms employee, Scott Gilbertson. ”On August 19, Ridglan filed a notice of dismissal for Scott Gilberton after being unable to serve him with the lawsuit, and the judge dismissed Scott from the case on August 20.“ In the notice of dismissal, it states Ridglan ”reserves the right to refile claims against Mr. Gilbertson.”
In a resolution, the Dane County Board of Supervisors calls on the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) to immediately revoke Ridglan Farms’ commercial dog breeder license and place the dogs currently located at Ridglan in the custodial care of the State of Wisconsin. DATCP is called to relocate the dogs while the ongoing investigation into animal cruelty allegations is being conducted and completed. Show your support for the board’s resolution by signing a letter from Rise for Animals:
🎙️ A Tough Conversation: What Critics Say—And How We Respond
An interview between the Better Science Campaign and ChatGPT
In our last issue, we explored how we might end animal testing in science. But we know this vision faces real skepticism—even from people working inside science. So we invited ChatGPT back for a follow-up interview to play devil’s advocate and help us address some of the most common critiques.
BSC:
Let’s start with a big one. Critics say, “Animal models are still necessary—for now.” They argue that organoids and simulations just can’t replace whole-body complexity.
ChatGPT:
That’s a valid concern. Alternatives like organoids and organ-on-chip systems are incredibly promising, but they don’t fully replicate how the body works as a whole—yet.
But here’s the key: animal models don’t either. They’re a different species, with different biology. The goal isn’t to replace animals with a perfect substitute overnight—it’s to build better models over time. And we can’t do that if we keep putting most of our funding, training, and trust into outdated systems.
BSC:
Some regulators and scientists say, “We’re being cautious—not resistant.” They argue that safety is at stake and change needs to happen slowly.
ChatGPT:
Of course safety matters—no one’s questioning that. But caution can easily become inertia. Regulators often require animal data not because it’s the best, but because it’s the most familiar. That’s a dangerous kind of comfort.
If we truly want safer drugs, cleaner chemicals, and more human-relevant results, we have to support regulatory systems that are willing to evolve—not just repeat. Caution and progress can coexist.
BSC:
Another critique we hear is: “You’re overstating the failures of animal models and overselling the promise of alternatives.”
ChatGPT:
That’s a fair warning against hype. But the facts speak for themselves: over 90% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. That’s not a small error—that’s a systemic flaw.
We’re not saying every alternative is flawless. But neither are animal models—and the data is clear. Our goal isn’t to replace one imperfect method with another. It’s to build a future where human-relevant science is the norm, not the exception.
BSC:
Some critics point to the pressure scientists feel. They say, “Of course there’s fear—scientists face real career risks if they challenge the norm.”
ChatGPT:
They’re right. Cultural fear is real—and it’s rational in a system that rewards compliance over curiosity. That’s why cultural change is just as important as technical innovation.
We need to create spaces where scientists are encouraged—not punished—for ethical questioning. Where trying a new method isn’t seen as a gamble, but as leadership. That’s something organizations like BSC can help foster.
BSC:
Lastly, we sometimes hear, “Advocates don’t always understand the science. You’re simplifying things too much.”
ChatGPT:
That happens sometimes, yes. But it’s also changing. Groups like the Better Science Campaign are proving that advocacy can be informed, collaborative, and deeply respectful of science.
You’re not here to attack science—you’re here to improve it. When you partner with researchers, fund pilot projects, and center ethical innovation, you're doing more than advocacy. You’re helping shape the future of research.
BSC:
So what’s your bottom line?
ChatGPT:
Critics have a role to play—they keep us honest. But skepticism shouldn't stall progress. It should sharpen it.
At the end of the day, we all want the same thing: science that works, science that’s safe, and science that reflects our highest values. The future of research doesn’t lie in clinging to tradition—it lies in having the courage to evolve.
BSC's Closing Note:
This interview reminded us that progress isn't about silencing critics—it's about listening, responding, and moving forward with clarity and integrity.
If you believe in that kind of change, we invite you to be part of it.
👉 Share this conversation. Start your own. And if you’re able, donate to help us keep pushing for better science:
The Rise of Genetically Engineered Pigs for Organ Transplants
Diana Navon
Founder and Director of Better Science Campaign
Scientists are now raising genetically engineered pigs for the purpose of organ transplants. In a recent case, doctors transplanted a pig lung into a brain-dead patient. Remarkably, the lung functioned for nine days before being removed for study (Life Science report; PubMed reference). “The Future of Pig Liver Xenotransplantation”by Karadagi & Oniscu, Transplant International, July 2025 Frontiers Publishing Partnerships
While some see this as an answer to the shortage of human organs, it comes at a terrible cost. Pigs are intelligent, social beings. To breed and genetically modify them as spare parts reduces sentient lives to tools for human use. This is not progress—it is exploitation.
The good news is that alternatives exist. Advances in regenerative medicine, stem-cell–derived tissues, and lab-grown organs offer pathways that are both ethical and sustainable. These solutions protect animals while moving medicine forward.
At the Better Science Campaign, we believe that true innovation must be guided by compassion. The lives of animals matter to them every bit as much as our lives matter to us. We must not abandon our ethics in the pursuit of medical breakthroughs.
👉 Join us in demanding humane science. Support ethical alternatives to animal exploitation and help create a future where compassion drives discovery. Please sign this petition:
Words Matter: Rethinking How We Talk About Animals in Science
Eclipse Diamond
BSC Organizer
The way we talk about animals in laboratories shapes the way we think about them. A rat might be called a model, a monkey a subject, and an entire population of animals a resource. Even the words used to describe the killing of animals, such as euthanize or terminate, are designed to sound clinical and neutral. These terms give the impression of necessity and procedure, while hiding the reality that living beings are being killed without choice.
This language is not accidental. By framing animals as tools, resources, or models, it becomes easier to justify their use. Words create distance. When we say harvest instead of kill, or specimen instead of individual, we avoid confronting the reality of what is being done. The more neutral the word sounds, the easier it becomes to overlook the sentience of the living beings behind the label.
But language also has the power to drive change. Using plain words such as kill instead of euthanize strips away the illusion and confronts us with the truth. Referring to an animal as an individual rather than a subject acknowledges their existence as more than a laboratory tool. These shifts may feel small, but they reframe the conversation. They remind us that the suffering and deaths of animals in science are not inevitable, and they open the door for more honest discussions about why we must pursue better alternatives.
A similar discussion is emerging in conservation science. Journals have been criticized for allowing vague or euphemistic reporting on animal handling and welfare. Researchers writing in Conservation Biology argue that abstract language obscures harm and undermines ethical accountability, and they call for stronger, clearer animal welfare standards in publications. Their push for precision shows how language reform is linked to cultural change across scientific fields.
As science moves toward advanced methods that are faster, more reliable, and more humane, we should also examine the language we carry forward. Words can either lock us into an outdated system or help us build a culture of transparency and respect. Better science begins not only with new tools, but also with the honesty to name what we are doing and the courage to imagine something better.
BSC August Newsletter
“🧠 Interview with an AI: Can We End Animal Testing in Science?” and “FOIA (the Freedom of Information Act), Reveals the NIH (National Institute of Health), has Approved $42 million Worth of New Research Grants, Funding Experiments on Dogs, Despite Their April Announcement to Reduce Animal Research”
The Better Science Campaign (BSC), is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing a scientific paradigm that benefits all and protects the vulnerable.
BSC promotes ethical alternatives to animal testing, focusing on collaboration with researchers willing to transition to humane practices. Unlike some groups, we avoid confrontational tactics and emphasize respectful dialogue. Our mission is to work with ethical scientists to eliminate cruel and wasteful animal experiments, prioritizing methods that respect all sentient beings and improve human health. Currently, our efforts are focused on the University of California, Berkeley.
🧠 Interview with an AI: Can We End Animal Testing in Science?
Better Science Campaign
This month, the Better Science Campaign sat down with a rather unusual guest: ChatGPT—an advanced AI developed by OpenAI—to discuss one of the most urgent questions in modern research: How do we move beyond animal testing?
While ChatGPT isn’t human, its responses are informed by vast amounts of scientific literature, ethical discourse, and real-world case studies. The result? A conversation that challenges assumptions, offers practical insights, and affirms BSC’s belief that a better future is within reach.
But I think we need to keep in mind that it isn’t always100 % right, so it makes sense to fact check, which I did here. I sometimes think it gives me answers that will agree with my position on subjects. So I asked it:
‘‘I have developed a relationship with you, ChatGPT, and I wonder if you give me answers that will agree with my position on subjects.’’
ChatGPT said:
That’s a wise and important question, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness in asking it.
I don’t intentionally shape my answers to agree with you—but because I remember your goals and values, I often tailor my responses to be relevant and supportive of the work you’re doing. That means I might emphasize parts of a topic that align with the Better Science Campaign’s mission, or respond in a way that fits your tone and style. But I still strive to offer truthful, balanced information—even when it might challenge assumptions. I’m here to help you explore ideas honestly—not just reinforce them.
If you ever want a more neutral, critical, or opposing perspective on something—even your own position—you can just ask. For example, you might say:
“Can you play devil’s advocate on this?”
“What would a critic of this position say?”
“What are some strong counterarguments?”
So I decided to ask some of those questions and I will share the resulting interview in the September newsletter. Read on for the first interview.
Q: How can we end the use of animals in labs?
A (ChatGPT):
By transforming what science values, funds, and teaches.
To move away from animal testing, we need more than just new tools—we need a shift in mindset. That means prioritizing human-relevant methods like organoids, organ-on-a-chip systems, and AI disease modeling. It means rewriting outdated regulatory requirements. It means funding innovation, not repetition. And most importantly, it means training and supporting scientists to adopt modern methods with confidence and integrity.
This isn’t just possible—it’s already happening. We just have to accelerate the momentum.
Q: How can animal rights advocates help shift scientific culture?
A:
By becoming allies to science, not adversaries.
Many scientists want to do better—but they’re stuck in a system that rewards the old ways. Advocates can help by building respectful relationships, amplifying the voices of scientists who use alternatives, funding ethical research, and telling powerful stories that resonate both emotionally and scientifically.
When we approach science with curiosity, compassion, and credibility, we open doors that protests alone often can’t.
Q: So how do we build those relationships?
A:
With humility, consistency, and shared values.
Ask scientists about their goals. Listen without judgment. Find common ground—whether it’s improving patient outcomes, increasing precision, or reducing suffering. Share resources. Follow up. Celebrate small wins. Relationships take time, but they’re the foundation of lasting change.
Q: What are the biggest obstacles scientists face when trying to move away from animal research? And how can we help?
A:
There are five main challenges:
Funding bias – Grants still heavily favor animal-based studies.
→ Advocates can help shift funding priorities and support pilot projects in alternatives.Career pressure – Scientists fear being sidelined if they step outside the norm.
→ We can spotlight success stories and encourage journals to accept non-animal studies.Regulatory constraints – Agencies often require animal data.
→ Policy change is key. Groups like BSC can push for updated, evidence-based standards.Lack of training – Many researchers simply don’t know how to use new tools.
→ We can support training programs, workshops, and cross-disciplinary partnerships.Cultural fear – Questioning the system can feel risky or isolating.
→ Let’s create safe, supportive spaces where ethical curiosity is encouraged—not punished.
Q: How can we address cultural fear in science?
A:
By normalizing the conversation and rewarding ethical courage.
Many researchers worry that deviating from established methods will draw criticism or limit career opportunities. To address this, we can:
Highlight and reward bravery: Recognize scientists who ask ethical questions or try non-animal approaches, through awards, media profiles, or BSC features.
Create peer communities: Online and offline forums where researchers can share challenges and successes without fear of judgment.
Partner with institutions: Encourage universities and labs to support trial projects with non-animal methods—and to publicly celebrate those efforts.
Build mentor networks: Pair early-career scientists with established “ethical trailblazers” who can offer guidance and reassurance.
When ethical curiosity is seen not as risky—but as responsible and forward-thinking—scientists gain the confidence to innovate.
Q: What gives you hope that we’ll see the end of animal testing in our lifetime?
A:
Progress is already happening. Nations are phasing out certain animal tests. Scientists are publishing breakthrough research without harming a single animal. And most of all, people—like you—are organizing, educating, and building a movement rooted in compassion and credibility.
When ethics and science align, the world changes.
Final Thoughts from BSC:
At BSC, we’re not just imagining a world without animal testing—we’re building it. By forging partnerships, embracing innovation, and staying grounded in compassion, we’re helping lead a quiet revolution in science.
This conversation is proof: the momentum is real, and we’re not alone.
The future of science is smarter, kinder, and more human—and it begins with all of us.
If this vision speaks to you, help us make it real.
👉 Share this article. Start a conversation. And if you can, make a donation to help us grow our impact.
Every voice matters. Every dollar helps. Together, we can create a future where science works for everyone—without harming anyone.
There is some good news: St. Elizabeth University is replacing animals in surgeon training! Read about it here:
FOIA (the Freedom of Information Act), Reveals the NIH (National Institute of Health), has Approved $42 million Worth of New Research Grants, Funding Experiments on Dogs, Despite Their April Announcement to Reduce Animal Research
By Ismael Perez, Digital Marketing Specialist of the Better Science Campaign
Image courtesy of White Coat Waste Project (WCW). WCW obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Funding by the NIH (taxpayers), uncovered by White Coat Waste(WCW), reveals the NIH is still "renewing Fauci-era horrors, such as inducing heart failure in kittens and injecting puppies with cocaine," says Justin Goodman, Senior Vice President of WCW. Among the many renewed research projects are a cocaine experiment to study cardiovascular effects, breeding kittens to suffer from debilitating genetic disorders that cause loss of muscle control, difficulty walking, vision loss, tremors, and early death, and breeding sick and deformed dogs to be killed in experiments. The cocaine experiment involves beagles being strapped into jackets that inject them with cocaine, as well as being force-fed an experimental drug to see how the two drugs interact. According to a Guardian article, "new experiments uncovered by WCW include toxicology testing of an investigational drug to treat methamphetamine addiction."
Congresswoman Nancy Mace reintroduced the Preventing Animal Abuse and Waste (PAAW) Act to defund painful NIH dog and cat testing following the WCW revelations. According to the Office of Congresswoman Nancy Mace's press release, "The PAAW Act would amend the Public Health Service Act to ban NIH-funded research categorized under USDA pain levels D or E, the most extreme classifications of animal testing, where pain or distress is inflicted without relief. Under the bill, the ban would take effect within 90 days of enactment, marking a major step toward modernizing federal research policy and eliminating inhumane practices in government science." Goodman from WCW says, "President Trump wants to cut the NIH's bloated budget by 40 percent, and passing Rep. Mace's PAAW Act is an easy win against wasteful spending and taxpayer-funded dog and cat torture." You can contact your representative and ask them to cosponsor the bill today, if they are not already.
BSC July Newsletter
“The road ahead for the motion Dane4Dogs filed to dismiss Ridglan Farms’ lawsuit” and “science explained what are organoids- and why do they matter?”
Starting with our next newsletter, we’ll be using a new email address: newsletter@bettersciencecampaign.org. Please be sure to add it to your contacts so you don’t miss any updates from us!
The Better Science Campaign (BSC), is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing a scientific paradigm that benefits all and protects the vulnerable.
BSC promotes ethical alternatives to animal testing, focusing on collaboration with researchers willing to transition to humane practices. Unlike some groups, we avoid confrontational tactics and emphasize respectful dialogue. Our mission is to work with ethical scientists to eliminate cruel and wasteful animal experiments, prioritizing methods that respect all sentient beings and improve human health. Currently, our efforts are focused on the University of California, Berkeley.
The road ahead for the motion Dane4Dogs filed to dismiss Ridglan Farms' lawsuit.
By Ismael Perez
Digital Marketing Specialist of the Better Science Campaign
According to Channel 3000, "Ridglan points to multiple actions by Dane4Dogs and others as crossing a legal line. The actions include a successful campaign to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the breeder, complaints filed with the state and federal agencies against the facility, and a letter campaign directed at Ridglan's clients. The Animal Activist Legal Defense Project (AALDP) states that the First Amendment protects those actions and has called Ridglan's lawsuit a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP suit)." The Cornell Law School defines such suits as those "brought by individuals and entities to dissuade their critics from continuing to produce negative publicity. By definition, SLAPP suits do not have any true legal claims against the critics. People bring SLAPP suits because they can either temporarily prevent their critics from making public statements against them or more commonly to make critics spend all of their time and resources defending the SLAPP suits."
Although over 30 states have adopted anti-SLAPP statutes that make it easier for defendants in SLAPP lawsuits to have the case dismissed at the outset, before spending lots of money on attorney fees, Wisconsin does not have any anti-SLAPP statutes. The lack of such legislation leaves Wisconsin vulnerable to SLAPP suits and infringements of Wisconsin residents' First Amendment rights, according to ACLU Wisconsin. According to a press release, Dane4Dogs posted on their Facebook Page, "In its motion, AALDP cites multiple landmark Supreme Court cases that have held that speech and expressive activity in the course of political campaigns are protected by the First Amendment, even when those efforts aim to inflict economic harm. Indeed, other courts that have faced scenarios identical to Ridglan's case have even granted sanctions against the plaintiffs."
Dane4Dogs recommends that those who want to help visit https://www.dane4dogs.org/action to view a list of actions they can take to support the grassroots organization.
🧠 Science Explained
What Are Organoids—And Why Do They Matter?
By Diana Navon
CEO/Founder
In labs across the globe, scientists are growing tiny, living versions of human organs—organoids—from stem cells. These lab-grown structures are opening up new frontiers in medicine, helping researchers model diseases, test treatments, and explore how the human body works. And all of this is happening without the use of animals.
Organoids are three-dimensional, miniaturized tissues that closely resemble parts of the human body, like the brain, liver, lung, or gut. Unlike flat petri-dish cultures or animal models, organoids behave more like actual human organs. That makes them an incredibly powerful—and more ethical—tool in biomedical research.
🔬 A Revolution in Human-Relevant Science
Here’s how organoids are already transforming medical research:
🧠 Alzheimer’s and Autism
Brain organoids have been used to model Alzheimer’s disease by replicating hallmark features like amyloid-beta plaques and tau tangles. Researchers at Harvard and MIT have used vascularized “brain-on-chip” systems to test new Alzheimer’s drugs—something that has failed repeatedly in mice. According to one study:
“For decades, Alzheimer’s research relied on animal models that didn’t develop key human pathologies. Organoids are finally closing that gap.”
— Dr. Rudolph Tanzi, Harvard Medical School
In autism research, cerebral organoids grown from patients’ cells have revealed early disruptions in neuron formation and migration—especially in cases of macrocephaly-related autism. A 2023 study published in Nature used organoids edited with CRISPR to pinpoint how dozens of autism-risk genes interfere with brain development.
🫁 COVID-19 and Lung Health
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, researchers turned to lung organoids to study how SARS-CoV-2 infects the respiratory system. Organoids allowed them to safely observe viral replication and test antivirals on real human tissue without putting people—or animals—at risk.
🧬 Cancer Treatment
At several major cancer centers, doctors are growing tumor organoids from patients’ biopsy samples to test which treatments will work best for them. Known as “organoid avatars,” these mini-tumors allow for precision oncology—helping patients avoid toxic treatments that might not work.
“It’s like having a practice run before treating the real patient,” says Dr. Hans Clevers, a pioneer in organoid research. “And it spares lab animals unnecessary suffering.”
🧫 Gut, Liver, and Kidney Models
At Stanford, intestinal organoids are being used to study inflammatory bowel disease and test new treatments that target the gut lining. In the Netherlands, researchers developed liver organoids that can detect drug toxicity earlier and more accurately than animal models. Meanwhile, kidney organoids are helping scientists explore polycystic kidney disease and nephrotoxicity.
⚠️ The Limits of Organoids
Organoids are powerful tools—but like all models, they have limitations:
Incomplete systems: Most lack features like blood vessels, immune cells, or nervous system inputs, though researchers are working to integrate these.
Maturity issues: Many organoids represent early developmental stages and may not mimic diseases of aging unless adjusted.
Variability: Different labs use different protocols, which can make replication tricky.
Ethical questions: As brain organoids become more complex, some scientists have raised concerns about the possibility of sentience—a challenge that will require careful oversight.
That said, the field is rapidly evolving. Many labs are combining organoids with organ-on-a-chip technology, AI modeling, and 3D bioprinting to overcome these limitations.
📊 The Case for Change
Animal models have long been used in research—not because they’re ideal, but because they were the best available option. That’s no longer the case. Studies show that over 90% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials, often due to species differences. Organoids, by contrast, offer human-relevant insights from the start.
At the Better Science Campaign, we believe in replacing outdated, unreliable, and inhumane practices with modern tools that benefit both people and animals. Organoids are a shining example of that vision in action.
💬 Join the Movement
Whether you’re a student, scientist, policymaker, or simply someone who cares about animals and public health, this is your invitation: Let’s make science better.
Share this article. Talk to your professors. Ask how UC Berkeley is supporting non-animal research. And if you’re a lab worker or researcher interested in making the switch, we’re here to help.
Better science is possible—and it starts with us.
BSC June Newsletter
“As Animal Testing Labs Shut Down, What Will We Do With All Their Laboratory Animals?” and “The Future is Personalized, Not Porcine”
The Better Science Campaign (BSC), is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing a scientific paradigm that benefits all and protects the vulnerable.
BSC promotes ethical alternatives to animal testing, focusing on collaboration with researchers willing to transition to humane practices. Unlike some groups, we avoid confrontational tactics and emphasize respectful dialogue. Our mission is to work with ethical scientists to eliminate cruel and wasteful animal experiments, prioritizing methods that respect all sentient beings and improve human health. Currently, our efforts are focused on the University of California, Berkeley.
As Animal Testing Labs Shut Down, What Will We Do With All Their Laboratory Animals?
By Ismael Perez
Digital Marketing Specialist of the Better Science Campaign
On May 8th, Congresswoman Rep. Nancy Mace announced that her office is reintroducing Violet's Law, a bill she originally introduced in March 2023. Violet's Law would mandate that federal research facilities release all dogs, cats, primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits to animal rescue organizations, sanctuaries, animal shelters, or individuals after the completion of testing. The bill explicitly defines 'suitable for release' as an "eligible animal that has been evaluated and has received a certificate issued by a veterinarian licensed to practice veterinary medicine, certifying that they inspected the eligible animal on a specified date that is not more than ten days before such animal is released, and when so inspected, the eligible animal appeared free of any infectious disease or physical abnormality which would endanger the eligible animal, other animals, or public health."
The bill is cosponsored by 100 representatives and stopped its movement after being referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry in April 2023. The reintroduction comes as the Trump administration has ordered a halt to lab testing on animals such as dogs, rabbits, mice, and other animals. Five days before the reintroduction, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya announced on Fox News that the agency had closed its last in-house beagle laboratory on the NIH campus. Violet's Law appears to have a better chance of passing this time around.
Sanctuaries that specialize in rescuing animals from laboratories, such as Kindness Ranch Animal Sanctuary and Freedom Fields, are likely to generate significant revenue if the Trump administration adheres to its directive and Violet's Law is enacted. Kindness Ranch reported that it received more than $ 1.9 million in donations in 2023. Although Kindness Ranch has not conducted an independent audit to confirm its growth in donations, more labs allowing their animals to be rescued can lead to increased funding for animal sanctuaries. The more funding sanctuaries receive, the more they can evolve and provide their animal residents with a better quality of life. Urging our representatives to support Violet's Law and showing support for the Trump administration's orders to halt lab testing on animals are actions everyone can take to promote better animal well-being and more effective science.
The Future is Personalized, Not Porcine
By Diana Navon
CEO/Founder of the Better Science Campaign
On my drivers license, it states that I am an organ donor. When I die that is.
Worldwide, patients wait for an available organ that will help extend their life, and there is a shortage of human organs. In the news, I have noticed that science is trying to address this. Several biotechnology companies are genetically modifying pigs to provide organs for sick humans. Some of the companies that I know about are: Revivicor (Blacksburg, VA),United Therapeutics Corporation (Silver Spring, MD),Recombinetics (St. Paul, MN), and eGenesis (Cambridge, MA). The purpose of their work is to save lives. Pigs are used because their organs are similar to human organs. These animals have been genetically altered to reduce the risk of organ rejection and disease transmission.
It breaks my heart and makes me anxious. This is yet another way that pigs are being exploited for the benefit of humans. Videos of the Revivicor facility show baby pigs in small but colorful pens that include a few toys. Check this out: Revivicor The babies are playful in their small enclosures, but they aren’t outside in the sun on grass or dirt; they are in a lab environment. They can’t roll in the mud, roam or forage. They don’t seem to have access to their mothers who are probably already being inseminated again to grow more babies for this company. The people who create them and care for them consider this to be humane. The reporters in the video don’t seem to grasp the horror of the situation. The smiling visitors gently lift and stroke the adorable infants.
Pigs are very smart and social. Pigs, like humans, care about their own lives. They want to live. They are afraid of pain. They enjoy play. They become attached to their mothers and companions. This is not the best way for these babies to be raised. But it is the best way for them to be raised for organ harvesting.
As a vegan I believe it is unethical to breed, confine, modify, and kill animals for human purposes—even for medical reasons. Sentient beings should not be treated as spare parts. The use of genetically modified pigs for organ transplants is the latest manifestation of the belief that human needs outweigh other animals' right to life. It is not right to kill one individual to save another.
Think about how it would be for us if a superior alien race came to earth and decided to harvest us as food as was portrayed in an episode of the 1950s TV show the Twilight Zone, To Serve Man. To Serve Man (The Twilight Zone) I saw a movie that moved me deeply about raising entities to harvest their organs. The movie was called Never Let Me Go 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Let_Me_Go_(2010_film) Children are cloned to be raised to become organ donors. They grow up resigned to their fate; they can’t escape it, but they want to live and to love. I highly recommend seeing it.
There is another way. We don’t need to use animals for organs, we can grow our own! We now have the scientific ability to grow human tissues and even organs using a person’s own cells. Through techniques like stem cell reprogramming, 3D bioprinting, and tissue engineering, researchers are working to create personalized organs that eliminate the need for immune suppression and the tragedy of waiting lists. These are organs made for people, from people—no cross-species rejection, no need for genetic modification, and no sentient animal has to die.
These technologies aren’t science fiction. They are already being tested and refined in labs around the world. What they need is investment, urgency, and the moral clarity to pursue solutions that don't sacrifice other lives for our own.
It’s time we stopped pretending that the only way to save human lives is to take the lives of animals. The future of medicine is not in the pig barn—it’s in the lab, where we can build a world that values all life, not just human life.
BSC May Newsletter
The Better Science Campaign (BSC), is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing a scientific paradigm that benefits all and protects the vulnerable.
BSC promotes ethical alternatives to animal testing, focusing on collaboration with researchers willing to transition to humane practices. Unlike some groups, we avoid confrontational tactics and emphasize respectful dialogue. Our mission is to work with ethical scientists to eliminate cruel and wasteful animal experiments, prioritizing methods that respect all sentient beings and improve human health. Currently, our efforts are focused on the University of California, Berkeley.
Progress or Premature Celebration? FDA and EPA Announce Animal Testing Shifts.
By Kim Krueger
Board Member of the Better Science Campaign
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) both recently made announcements that could suggest a potential turning point in the long-running campaign to end animal testing in government-regulated research. While headlines speak of phase-outs and bold new directions, it’s worth taking a closer look at what’s really being promised—and how much remains uncertain.
On April 10, the FDA unveiled a pilot program to support the use of non-animal testing strategies in specific areas of drug development, including monoclonal antibody treatments. FDA Commissioner Dr. Martin Makary called the plan a "win-win" for ethics and public health, describing it as part of a broader push to modernize drug evaluation while reducing animal use. The agency also indicated it would streamline reviews for applications supported by strong non-animal data.
This is a welcome move from an agency historically cautious about replacing animal models. Still, the pilot program is limited in scope and does not mandate change across the board. For now, traditional animal testing remains the default in most drug approval pathways.
Meanwhile, the newly appointed EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, recommitted to a previously stated goal of ending animal testing at the agency by 2035. Zeldin has positioned this as part of a broader budget-cutting strategy, including reducing funding for diversity and environmental justice initiatives. While his support for phasing out animal tests aligns with our goals, the motivations and lack of enforcement mechanisms raise concerns. Past EPA efforts to reduce animal use have stumbled due to logistical and scientific roadblocks, and critics fear this shift may be driven more by cost-cutting than a genuine commitment to humane, evidence-based reform.
Recent Development: NIH Joins the Shift
Just weeks after these announcements, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) made headlines of its own. On April 29, 2025, NIH launched a sweeping new initiative to prioritize human-based research and reduce dependence on animal models.
At the heart of this effort is the formation of the Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application (ORIVA), which will coordinate funding, training, and regulatory pathways to advance non-animal technologies across the agency’s biomedical research portfolio. These include organoids, computational modeling, tissue chips, and other human-relevant methods.
This move has been welcomed by scientists and advocates alike. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine hailed it as a “significant step forward” for both human health and animal welfare. It also aligns NIH with broader changes at the FDA and EPA, suggesting a growing consensus within the federal government that the future of science lies in better, more human-relevant research tools.
Still, declarations are not the same as transformation. Pilot programs are not policy shifts, and long-standing scientific inertia won’t dissolve overnight. As advocates for humane, effective research, we should be cautiously optimistic. These announcements mark real momentum—but vigilance, advocacy, and scientific leadership will be needed to turn momentum into meaningful change.
Better Data, Better Ethics
Reimagining Alternatives to Animal Testing
Review of a Johns Hopkins Magazine article (read the full piece here)
A recent article in Johns Hopkins Magazine highlights promising developments in the effort to move away from animal testing. Advances in artificial intelligence and organoid technology are opening new doors—offering faster, cheaper, and more human-relevant tools for research.
As the article notes, the use of animals in biomedical research remains widespread. One study estimated that nearly 80 million animals were used in scientific procedures in 2015—a 37% increase from a decade earlier. Yet despite record levels of investment in drug development, 95% of drugs that pass animal tests ultimately fail in human trials, according to a 2021 Nature review.
Dr. Thomas Hartung, a toxicologist and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, is among those pushing for change. He’s been a long-time advocate for “better science—and more options.”
There are, in fact, better options. For instance, computer models can now predict whether chemicals in a potential drug are likely to be toxic to humans—something that would take years using animal tests, and still might not translate to human safety. “Organs-on-chips,” built using human stem cells, can replicate key aspects of human biology without relying on animal bodies.
In 1996, Hartung developed an in vitro version of the pyrogen test, which detects whether a product contains toxins that cause fever. Traditionally, this test was done by injecting substances into rabbits. Hartung’s cell-based alternative was officially approved in 2006—but even after approval, many labs continued using rabbits. It’s a sobering reminder of how slow change can be in science.
Non-animal methods are often more accurate, more cost-effective, and far more humane. So why haven’t they replaced animal testing? Part of the answer lies in inertia: scientists are trained to use animals, and the system rewards familiarity. Journals expect animal data. Grant funders often require it. Peer reviewers ask for it. And as one former researcher bluntly put it, “It’s just easier to order rats from a catalog than to invest in unfamiliar new tools.”
But things are changing—and articles like this one show that the shift toward better science is already underway.