On April 1, Trump’s attempt to reduce government funding arrived at Morgantown, W.Va., where federal scientists spent their days studying health and safety threats to American workers. That morning, hundreds of employees at the National Institute for the safety and health of the work were informed that they were terminated and will lose access to the building.
The left behind were more than 900 laboratory animals. The Institute eventually managed to carry about two-thirds of them-mostly mice, as well as a handful of rats-sent to university laboratories, according to two recently ended installation officials. The remaining 300 animals, however, were euthanized last week.
In recent months, Trump’s administration has been aimed at US research, launching the results of federal scientists, the cancellation of active research grants and the proposal of drastic cuts in funding that helps laboratories maintain their lights.
These moves, which have left many scientists out of work and disturbing clinical research, have profound consequences for laboratory animals that serve as a basis for much of the Nation’s biomedical research.
“There will be many animals that will end up sacrificing-cutting,” said Paul Locke, an animal’s laboratory law and the use of non-vital alternatives in research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The final tax is difficult to predict, experts have said, in part because many of the administration’s actions are involved in legal battles. Animal research is also surrounded by secrecy. There are no definitive numbers for how many animals live in US laboratories.
Many scientists were reluctant to speak openly about what they could do for their laboratory animals, fearing a reaction from animal rights activists or retaliation by their employers or Trump’s administration. Dozens of interview requests in research facilities and animal researchers have become unanswered.
“I think they don’t talk about it, because it’s a situation that, for them, it’s just a parade of scary,” Dr. Locke said. “If they are going to keep animals up, it will be massively expensive. If the animals are to sacrifice, it is going to cause public anger.”
Some animal rights activists cover the disorder, even if it means euthanasia of animals. But many researchers said they were destroyed by what they considered the worst of both worlds: the deaths of many animals without profit in scientific knowledge.
“We do not take the use of animals slightly,” said Kyle Mandler, a pulmonary toxicologist who was among scientists recently terminated by the National Institute for the safety and health of work, part of the Disease Control and Prevention Centers. At that time, it was in the middle of a study on dangerous dust produced in the manufacture of certain construction materials. About two dozen from his mice were euthanized last week – the endless study, the data that has not been concentrated.
“The fact that their life and sacrifice will be just a complete waste is the equal places depressed and outrageous,” he said.
The Ministry of Health and Human Services did not immediately answer questions about Morgantown animal fate. But in an electronic statement, an anonymous HHS official said the changes to NIOSH were part of a “broader re -insignificant”, in which multiple programs were consolidated in the new administration for a healthy America.
“Staffing and operational adjustments occur in phases,” the statement said. “Animal care businesses remain active and HHS is committed to maintaining compliance with all federal living standards throughout this transition.”
Sudden attitudes
In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have begun to move away from animal research, which is expensive, morally full and not always a good predictor of what can happen to humans. This month, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that it was planning to “abolish” animal tests for certain types of medicines and to promote the use of alternatives, such as organoids or “chip organs”, three -dimensional models of human organs manufactured by laboratory cells.
Experts agree that these emerging technologies have a huge promise. But some say that, at least now, laboratory animals remain a critical part of biomedical research and that some types of data cannot be concentrated in any other way.
“We want to move on from this project,” said Naomi Charalambakis, director of the science policy and communications of Americans for medical progress, a non -profit organization that supports the ongoing use of animals in biomedical research. “But we’re not there yet.”
Animal research research, which often lasts for years for design and conduct, requires stable, predictable funding and experienced veterinarians and technicians to provide daily care. The moves by Trump’s administration have questioned all this.
At the National Institute for the Security and Health of the National Institute, for example, abrupt terminals initially included animal care personnel. “But they fought back and said they did not leave while the animals were in the facility,” said a former laboratory technician who asked not to be identified to maintain future employment options.
After Trump’s administration began playing funding at Harvard this month, researchers who are developing a new tuberculosis vaccine faced the prospect of having to euthanize the Rhesus macaques. The study, and the monkeys, were saved only after a private donor came in to provide funding.
Some animals in projects that have been closed could be moved to other laboratories or institutions, but others may have already received experimental treatments or have been exposed to pathogens or toxins. Laboratory animals, many of which are bred to show certain behaviors or health vulnerabilities, are not wild and cannot simply be released. And the sudden increase in surplus laboratory animals can be more than the sanctuaries of the nation’s animals can absorb, experts said.
Ann Linder, Deputy Director of the Animal Legal and Politics Program at Harvard Law School, is concerned that the fate of many laboratory animals will end up in the “whims and temperaments” of individual researchers and laboratory workers.
“Without supervision, some of these decisions will be poor and many will become a difficult necessity, without taking into account the well -being of these animals,” he said in an email.
Cutting
Many researchers said they were also concerned about the efforts of the National Institute of Health to strongly limit funding for “indirect costs” linked to scientific research, including those related to the maintenance of animal care facilities.
A federal judge has banned NIH from setting these funding ceilings, but the Agency has appealed. If politics pass, it could be disastrous for institutions that do non -human primates research, which are long -term and expensive to take care of.
The Primate Washington National Research Center, based at the University of Washington, has more than 800 non -human primates. A ceiling for indirect funding will cost the center of about $ 5 million a year, forcing it to reduce its colony, said Deborah Fuller, director of the center.
It could destroy the entire infrastructure we have built, “he said.
If this happened, the center will make every effort to find new homes for his animals, he added. But other research centers will face the same challenges and the priests of the capitals may not be able to absorb the influx.
As a last resort, primates may need to be euthanized. “It is a worse case scenario,” said Sally Thompson-Iritani, an assistant vice president of the University Research Office. “Although none of us want to think about it or should talk about it. It could happen.”
For some animal rights activists, a decrease in federal animal research is something to celebrate. “For many of these animals, euthanasia before experimenting is probably a scenario with the best,” said Justin Goodman, a senior vice -president at The White Coat Waste Project, a non -profit organization that supports the end of animal research. (The organization would prefer to see laboratory animals placed in new houses, noted.)
Delcianna Winders, who runs the Institute of Legal and Political Animals in Vermont Law and the Graduate School, said she hopes that these cuts will write the end of the national primates. However, he said he was worried that cuts and redundancies at the US Department of Agriculture, which imposes the federal animal living law, would weaken the “already relaxed supervision of the nation” for the prosperity of laboratory animals.
Dr. Locke hopes that this crisis can be a “wake -up call” for the nation to move further to alternatives to animal research. But this transition must happen carefully, he said.
“I don’t think it’s okay to make millions of animals from research,” Dr. Locke said. “I don’t think this is socially acceptable. I don’t think it’s scientifically acceptable and I think we need to recognize that this is a potential result.”
