No Justification Left: The Case Against Animal Testing in the Age of Effective Alternatives – Why reducing government grants to animal research is a step in the right direction
When President Donald Trump implemented a policy slashing $2 billion in government grants tied to animal experimentation, few expected the decision would spark support from animal advocates. But for people like Don Lichterman, a longtime voice for ethical science and animal rights, the move brought a silver lining.
“If taking away those grants helps eliminate testing on wildlife and animals, I support that policy—without hesitation,” Lichterman said.
And he’s not alone. Across the globe, a growing chorus of scientists, activists, and ethical researchers are calling for the end of taxpayer-funded animal torture, especially when viable and more effective alternatives already exist.
The Story That Still Haunts Us
For many advocates, one name continues to echo: Britches—a baby monkey rescued in 1985 after being subjected to a cruel experiment in which he was blindfolded and removed from his mother to study the effects of sensory deprivation. The public outcry from that case helped ignite the modern anti-vivisection movement.
Yet nearly 40 years later, Harvard University and other institutions still conduct psychological torment studies that involve tearing baby monkeys from their mothers, exposing them to relentless mental and physical distress—all in the name of science.
“It’s not just unethical—it’s obsolete,” says Lichterman. “There are cheaper, faster, and scientifically superior methods available today. Continuing these practices is a waste of lives and taxpayer money.”
The Alternatives Are Here—and Better
Thanks to breakthroughs in technology, researchers now have access to a host of non-animal testing methods, including:
- Organ-on-a-chip systems that mimic human physiology far better than any animal model
- 3D bioprinting of human tissues for drug testing
- Advanced computer modeling and AI to simulate biological responses
These methods are not only more humane, but more predictive of human outcomes—cutting down on failures in clinical trials and reducing development costs.
“It’s a win for science, a win for animals, and a win for the budget,” said Dr. Sanya Morgan, a biomedical ethics researcher.
Time to Cut the Cruelty—and the Checks
Federal funding of animal testing doesn’t just perpetuate cruelty—it slows progress and diverts resources away from more effective solutions. The $2 billion in slashed grants could instead be directed toward advancing alternative research methods that benefit both humans and animals.
What You Can Do
🐾 Contact your representatives to support bills phasing out animal testing, such as the Humane Research and Testing Act.
💡 Support organizations like the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and PETA that fund alternative research methods.
📢 Raise awareness by sharing stories like Britches’ and speaking out against institutions still using outdated, torturous practices.
The truth is simple and unavoidable: There is no ethical or scientific justification for tormenting animals in laboratories—not when the alternatives are not just available, but superior.
It’s time to leave animal testing behind. Not just because it’s cruel. Because it’s unnecessary.
#EndAnimalTesting #BritchesNeverAgain #HumaneScienceNow #StopHarvardAnimalCruelty #SustainableActionToday