BSC May 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.
Progress or Premature Celebration? FDA and EPA Announce Animal Testing Shifts.
By Kim Krueger
Board Member of the Better Science Campaign
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) both recently made announcements that could suggest a potential turning point in the long-running campaign to end animal testing in government-regulated research. While headlines speak of phase-outs and bold new directions, it’s worth taking a closer look at what’s really being promised—and how much remains uncertain.
On April 10, the FDA unveiled a pilot program to support the use of non-animal testing strategies in specific areas of drug development, including monoclonal antibody treatments. FDA Commissioner Dr. Martin Makary called the plan a "win-win" for ethics and public health, describing it as part of a broader push to modernize drug evaluation while reducing animal use. The agency also indicated it would streamline reviews for applications supported by strong non-animal data.
This is a welcome move from an agency historically cautious about replacing animal models. Still, the pilot program is limited in scope and does not mandate change across the board. For now, traditional animal testing remains the default in most drug approval pathways.
Meanwhile, the newly appointed EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, recommitted to a previously stated goal of ending animal testing at the agency by 2035. Zeldin has positioned this as part of a broader budget-cutting strategy, including reducing funding for diversity and environmental justice initiatives. While his support for phasing out animal tests aligns with our goals, the motivations and lack of enforcement mechanisms raise concerns. Past EPA efforts to reduce animal use have stumbled due to logistical and scientific roadblocks, and critics fear this shift may be driven more by cost-cutting than a genuine commitment to humane, evidence-based reform.
Recent Development: NIH Joins the Shift
Just weeks after these announcements, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) made headlines of its own. On April 29, 2025, NIH launched a sweeping new initiative to prioritize human-based research and reduce dependence on animal models.
At the heart of this effort is the formation of the Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application (ORIVA), which will coordinate funding, training, and regulatory pathways to advance non-animal technologies across the agency’s biomedical research portfolio. These include organoids, computational modeling, tissue chips, and other human-relevant methods.
This move has been welcomed by scientists and advocates alike. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine hailed it as a “significant step forward” for both human health and animal welfare. It also aligns NIH with broader changes at the FDA and EPA, suggesting a growing consensus within the federal government that the future of science lies in better, more human-relevant research tools.
Still, declarations are not the same as transformation. Pilot programs are not policy shifts, and long-standing scientific inertia won’t dissolve overnight. As advocates for humane, effective research, we should be cautiously optimistic. These announcements mark real momentum—but vigilance, advocacy, and scientific leadership will be needed to turn momentum into meaningful change.
Better Data, Better Ethics
Reimagining Alternatives to Animal Testing
Review of a Johns Hopkins Magazine article (read the full piece here)
A recent article in Johns Hopkins Magazine highlights promising developments in the effort to move away from animal testing. Advances in artificial intelligence and organoid technology are opening new doors—offering faster, cheaper, and more human-relevant tools for research.
As the article notes, the use of animals in biomedical research remains widespread. One study estimated that nearly 80 million animals were used in scientific procedures in 2015—a 37% increase from a decade earlier. Yet despite record levels of investment in drug development, 95% of drugs that pass animal tests ultimately fail in human trials, according to a 2021 Nature review.
Dr. Thomas Hartung, a toxicologist and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, is among those pushing for change. He’s been a long-time advocate for “better science—and more options.”
There are, in fact, better options. For instance, computer models can now predict whether chemicals in a potential drug are likely to be toxic to humans—something that would take years using animal tests, and still might not translate to human safety. “Organs-on-chips,” built using human stem cells, can replicate key aspects of human biology without relying on animal bodies.
In 1996, Hartung developed an in vitro version of the pyrogen test, which detects whether a product contains toxins that cause fever. Traditionally, this test was done by injecting substances into rabbits. Hartung’s cell-based alternative was officially approved in 2006—but even after approval, many labs continued using rabbits. It’s a sobering reminder of how slow change can be in science.
Non-animal methods are often more accurate, more cost-effective, and far more humane. So why haven’t they replaced animal testing? Part of the answer lies in inertia: scientists are trained to use animals, and the system rewards familiarity. Journals expect animal data. Grant funders often require it. Peer reviewers ask for it. And as one former researcher bluntly put it, “It’s just easier to order rats from a catalog than to invest in unfamiliar new tools.”
But things are changing—and articles like this one show that the shift toward better science is already underway.
BSC April Newsletter
For years, advocates had urged authorities to investigate Ridglan Farms, calling for charges of animal cruelty and the facility’s closure. Yet, instead of action against the breeders, the whistleblowers themselves were prosecuted.
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.
BSC March Newsletter
For years, advocates had urged authorities to investigate Ridglan Farms, calling for charges of animal cruelty and the facility’s closure. Yet, instead of action against the breeders, the whistleblowers themselves were prosecuted.
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!