BSC September 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.
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.
