BSC March Newsletter
The Better Science Campaign (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 Origins of the Better Science Campaign
By Diana Navon
CEO/Founder of the Better Science Campaign
The Better Science Campaign began in December 2021 under the name Anti-Vivisection. Initially, we were a small group within the animal rights network Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), which is known for its investigative activism, open rescues, and nonviolent direct action to expose cruelty and push for systemic change. I was a longtime member and organizer.
One of DxE’s investigations uncovered horrific conditions inside a breeding facility, called Ridglan Farms, where dogs were raised, experimented on, and sold for further testing.
Dogs were crammed into tiny cages with nothing but metal grids for flooring—no blanket for comfort, no soft surface to rest on. Their paws, swollen and infected from constant pressure on the harsh metal, were raw and painful. The air reeked of urine and feces, a thick, choking stench that never cleared. The harsh lights were on 24 hours a day. Whistleblowers revealed an even darker reality: dogs were subjected to brutal eye surgeries and vocal cord removals—silenced to prevent barking—performed by unqualified individuals using filthy scissors, all without a trace of pain relief.
As part of this investigation, DxE rescued three beagles and found them loving homes. One of them joined my family. Julie was especially vulnerable. Her story inspired the launch of what was then the Anti-Vivisection campaign. However, since DxE was primarily focused on animal agriculture and didn’t have the bandwidth to take on the fight against animal experimentation, I decided to start a campaign dedicated to this issue.
Back then, we were a group of about 15 passionate animal rights activists, including practicing veterinarians trained at prestigious institutions like UC Davis, as well as lab and vet technicians who had witnessed—and in some cases, even participated in—the treatment of animals in research, an experience that left many deeply traumatized. At our first meetings in 2021, the vets and techs gave eye-opening presentations about the realities of animal experimentation, the stigma faced by scientists who question the system, and the ethical challenges within the field.
One of the most striking stories we heard was about a bright student who was denied admission to a graduate program simply because someone told a professor that she "loved animals so much that she was vegan." This highlights a larger issue: in many scientific spaces, merely expressing sympathy for animals—let alone questioning their use in research—can lead to ostracization and even exclusion from programs and labs. The pressure to conform is so strong that scientists who privately harbor doubts about animal experimentation often feel unable to speak up.
During those early meetings, we also debated the use of the word vivisection. It’s a term almost exclusively used by those who oppose animal research, and we wanted a name that reflected our commitment to science while making clear our stance against cruelty. After much discussion, we landed on Better Science Campaign—a name that conveys our belief that science can be better: more productive, more reliable, and less expensive—without animal suffering.
We also defined our mission and approach. We all respected science and wanted it to be cruelty-free. We weren’t seeking to simply reduce harm (welfarism), but we also weren’t against scientific progress. We identified as abolitionists but recognized that animals can benefit from science too—there are ethical ways to study them for their own well-being. We wanted to push beyond the standard framework of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement).
What are the 3Rs?
The principles of the 3Rs—developed over 50 years ago—offer a framework for making animal research more humane. These principles have since been embedded in national and international laws, as well as in the policies of research institutions and funding bodies. While the 3Rs were a step forward, we believe it’s time to go further and fundamentally rethink the role of animals in science.
We spent an entire year immersing ourselves in the science of alternatives. We hosted a webinar with expert speakers, pored over books and articles, and gained a deeper understanding of the motivations of scientists and lab workers. What we learned surprised us: the vast majority weren’t indifferent to animal suffering—they were in this field because they truly wanted to help.
That realization shaped our approach. We knew we didn’t want to take the typical animal rights route. Instead of protests or antagonistic tactics, we chose a different path—one that prioritized collaboration over confrontation. We wanted to build bridges with scientists and researchers, not alienate them. It may have seemed radically naive, but we believed in helping them transition to a future without animal experimentation.
Along the way, we developed Julie’s Law.
Julie’s Law
A Bill of Rights for Nonhuman Animals in Laboratories
This Bill of Rights recognizes that all animals used in research have:
The right to not be property.
The right to not be killed or harmed, physically or psychologically, for science.
The right to not be bred for experimentation.
The right to a home or habitat that allows for natural social needs and behaviors.
The right to a guardian or advocate to protect their interests.
The right to legal representation and protection under the law.
The right to be tested upon only if they are expected to directly benefit.
Julie’s Law became the foundation of our movement—a declaration that science can and must evolve beyond cruelty. But developing a vision was just the beginning. The real challenge was figuring out how to turn these principles into action.
In our next newsletter, we’ll share how we took our first steps beyond theory—building connections, engaging with the scientific community, and laying the groundwork for real change. Stay tuned!
