BSC April Newsletter (Copy)
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.
Exposing Cruelty: The Fight to End Ridglan Farms’ Abuse of Research Dogs
By Diana Navon
CEO/Founder of the Better Science Campaign
A Wisconsin puppy mill is under intense scrutiny after activists exposed severe mistreatment of dogs bred for scientific experiments, potentially leading to criminal charges against Ridglan Farms. This is the same facility where, eight years ago, animal rights activists Wayne Hsiung, Paul Darwin Picklesimer, and Eva Hamer rescued a blind beagle named Julie. Julie, who once exhibited signs of severe psychological distress, was later adopted by Diana Navon, founder of the Better Science Campaign. Under Navon's care, Julie has transformed into a joyful and affectionate companion.
Julie is free now, but there are still countless animals suffering in the breeding and research industries, but there is hope for a change! See more here:
Blind beagle 'rescued' from puppy mill thrives 8 years late (FOX6 News Milwaukee)
Dogs of science; Wisconsin puppy mill could face criminal charges (FOX6 News Milwaukee)
This is no way to treat humans’ best friend (Washington Post)
The Origins of the Better Science Campaign Part 2
By Diana Navon
CEO/Founder of the Better Science Campaign
In our last issue, we shared the origins of the Better Science Campaign—born from a desire to take meaningful action against animal testing. This issue continues the story, showing how we evolved from activists to advocates working within the system.
After Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) exposed horrific conditions at Ridglan Farms, where dogs were bred and experimented on, I adopted Julie, one of the rescued dogs. A small number of DxE members and I started BSC because we felt the need for a dedicated effort against animal testing.
We spent a year learning about how animals are used in labs and exploring existing alternatives. Instead of traditional activism, we chose collaboration—working with scientists, veterinarians, and lab technicians to advance humane research methods. This commitment led us to develop Julie’s Law—a Bill of Rights for lab animals. We drew inspiration from the Belmont Report (1979), which laid the foundation for modern research ethics by establishing three core principles for human subjects: Respect for Persons (informed consent and autonomy), Beneficence (maximizing benefits while minimizing harm), and Justice (ensuring fair distribution of research burdens and benefits). Read the Belmont Report | HHS.gov We believed animals in labs deserved similar ethical considerations.
During our second year, we organized a global webinar featuring experts on humane research alternatives. While we reached an engaged audience, we realized most attendees were already aligned with our cause. It was an important educational effort, but it also reinforced the need to reach beyond the animal rights community. Here is a link to that webinar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_akykUgKjQ&t=426s
Our team wanted to understand researchers' perspectives, so we created a survey and emailed it to various labs. However, we received few responses. We learned an important lesson—faculty are more receptive when students lead the conversation. One of our student members arranged a meeting with a professor, opening a door that had previously been closed to us.
I accompanied the student to the meeting, where we spoke with a professor who was open and curious about our work. He mentioned that some researchers had been alarmed by our survey, which highlighted an important insight—those working with animals often fear animal rights activists due to past incidents of vandalism, harassment, and intimidation. This was crucial for us to understand. The BSC firmly opposes such tactics, and I assured him of our commitment to ethical advocacy. We’ve learned from DxE that meaningful change happens by challenging systems, not individuals—who are often caught in those systems themselves.
I met with him again, and over time, he introduced me to staff and veterinarians, whom I also had the chance to meet. He even joined one of our Zoom meetings, offering valuable insights into the perspective of researchers.
One of the most eye-opening moments came when the professor shared his perspective on research animals. Unlike dogs and cats, he—and many in science—viewed mice and rats as lower-order species, less deserving of moral consideration. One of our team members, a veterinarian, challenged this view, and to our surprise, the professor was open to the discussion. These conversations reinforced our belief that meaningful change starts with dialogue.
Through these experiences, we gained a deeper understanding of the research world and refined our approach. BSC’s mission remains the same: to advocate for ethical science by fostering collaboration and pushing for systemic change. The journey continues.
As we move forward, we remain committed to bridging the gap between science and ethics, fostering conversations that drive real change. If you share our vision for a future where humane research is the standard, we invite you to join us—whether through advocacy, collaboration, or simply spreading awareness. Together, we can push for a better future in science.
