BSC August 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.
🧠 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.
