Newsletter #7
Happy New Year from the Better Science Campaign!
As we step into 2025, we thank you for your support and dedication to advancing humane, ethical science. Your passion drives meaningful change, and we look forward to achieving even more together this year.
Wishing you a joyful, healthy, and inspiring New Year!
With gratitude,
The Better Science Campaign Team
BSC Survey on Animal Use in Research for the UC Berkeley Community
Hello UC Berkeley community! The Better Science Campaign (BSC) wants to hear from you. We're gathering thoughts from students, faculty, and staff about using animals in our research labs. Your input is invaluable, and we'd love for you to share your insights by taking a quick survey. Just click the link below:
https://forms.gle/QJiP9q6o2aPM2A5X9
Thank you for helping us promote better science!
When Values Align in Unexpected Ways
By Diana Navon, Founder, Better Science Campaign
As someone who supports vaccines and values science, I often find myself at odds with Donald Trump’s policies and rhetoric. However, I’m surprised to discover common ground with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on an issue I care deeply about: reforming animal research. Trump’s reported plans to appoint Kennedy as head of the Department of Health and Human Services and Jay Bhattacharya to lead the NIH signal a potential shift in federal policy that aligns with the goals of the White Coat Waste Project, an advocacy group dedicated to ending taxpayer-funded animal experiments.
Kennedy has condemned “the torture of animals for industry profit,” and Bhattacharya has called White Coat Waste “absolute heroes” for opposing federally funded virus experiments on animals. While I disagree with these figures on many other issues, their stance on this topic reflects a shared commitment to reevaluating outdated practices and pursuing humane alternatives in biomedical research.
An article in Science (Science.org) highlights the activities of the White Coat Waste Project. Founded in 2016 by former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti, the group positions itself as a “taxpayer watchdog,” targeting government spending on animal experiments. During Trump’s first term, the organization achieved notable victories, shutting down several animal research projects and cutting millions of dollars in federal funding. For instance, White Coat Waste influenced the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) decision to phase out mammalian testing in chemical safety studies by 2035 and prompted congressional action requiring the NIH to explore alternatives to nonhuman primates.
Under the Biden administration, anti-animal research efforts have lost momentum. The Biden EPA abandoned deadlines for eliminating mammal testing, citing “the best available science” without binding timelines. However, there was progress: the FDA Modernization Act 2.0, signed into law in December 2022, removed the federal requirement for animal testing in all new drug development protocols . Washington Times.
Looking ahead, a potential Trump presidency brings renewed opportunities for groups like White Coat Waste to further reduce government funding for animal research. Ironically, as someone who aligns with much of President Biden’s political agenda, I find myself deeply disappointed by his administration’s lack of progress in this area. His failure to prioritize ethical reforms in animal research contrasts with his broader commitments to climate action and social justice.
Conclusion
The future of animal research reform lies at the crossroads of science, ethics, and politics. Regardless of political leanings, we must advocate for policies that balance scientific advancement with humane practices. Supporting researchers as they adopt modern alternatives—such as organ-on-a-chip systems and advanced computer modeling—is critical for progress. By investing in innovative, humane technologies, we can ensure that science continues to thrive responsibly. Let’s work together to create a future where science is cutting-edge, compassionate, and free from unnecessary harm to animals.
The Kindness Cascade
Why a small number of NAM researchers can kick-off an explosion of better science
By Yonatan Naamad, PhD, Contributor, Better Science Campaign
Science, for all its revolutionary potential, often favors the familiar. From funding committees to journal referees, and from securing tenure to ensuring their students' success, researchers face incentives that reward sticking with established, familiar methods – even when better alternatives exist. Yet sometimes, a different path forward becomes too compelling to ignore.
Today, researchers embracing Non-Animal Methods (NAMs) are forging such a path. Millions of animals endure confinement and invasive procedures in labs every year. Yet, researchers enter their fields to solve problems, save lives, and advance knowledge – not to cause harm. By adopting NAMs, they are not only sparing countless lives but also advancing the frontiers of science. While the primary beneficiaries of this transition will always be the animals spared from harm, the ripple effects extend far beyond one lab. What starts as a single lab's decision to embrace better science can ignite a cascade of more humane and effective methods across research disciplines.
Traditionally, experts think about new beliefs or ideas spreading like a chain reaction: one researcher influences their colleagues, who then influence others, and so on. And these influence cascades are often explosive and difficult to predict. In fact, the most consistent quality of these phenomena are just how unpredictable they can be, and how just a small set of well-positioned individuals can make or break its explosive growth. But while this domino effect might explain how some practices catch on, the adoption of Non-Animal Methods offers something more powerful.
Right now, many researchers stick with animal testing because it's the safe choice - it's what grant reviewers expect, what journals are used to, and what regulatory bodies are most familiar with. But this vicious cycle can be turned on its head into a virtuous one: each researcher who successfully uses Non-Animal Methods – who fights against these pressures – makes it a little less risky for others to follow suit. As more labs demonstrate success with these methods, grant reviewers, journals, and regulatory bodies alike all gain confidence in the approach and become more accepting going forward.
Beyond just social influence, each NAM success creates new scientific possibilities that benefit the broader research community. When a lab develops a more predictive organ-on-a-chip model, or validates a new in-silico approach, they're not just convincing their colleagues to switch methods - they're expanding the toolkit available to all researchers, even those working in completely different fields or institutions. This dual impact - both social and scientific - means that NAM adoption can cascade faster and further than classical person-to-person models could ever predict.
We're already seeing the early stages of this cascade in action. The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, which removed the mandatory requirement for animal testing in drug development in late 2022, came after years of researchers demonstrating the validity of alternative methods. Similarly, organ-on-chip technology, pioneered in the early 2010s, is now used by 21 of the top 25 pharmaceutical companies. These advancements are not only more humane, but also lead to faster drug development, safer consumer products, and better health outcomes for the world at large.
As we enter 2025, the stage is set for a breakthrough year in research methods. Every scientist who chooses a better path today becomes part of something bigger - a cascade of kindness that will not only spare lab animals from harm, but also transform science itself.
