[As posted in Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) News: July 17, 2025]
Research institutions—especially when acting collectively—are uniquely positioned to add credibility to advocacy messaging in these ever-changing times. As activist-driven narratives gain traction in federal policy discussions, it’s critical that research institutions step forward to help ensure that decisions about animal research remain grounded in science. Institutions bring unmatched credibility, expertise, and influence—making their engagement essential at this pivotal moment.
The following strategies are similar to those described above but are more tailored to institutional needs and capabilities.
1. Submit Institutional Comments via Public Comment Periods. Comments on behalf of the institution carry more weight than indvidiual comments given their authority. Consider collaborating with your government affairs office, communications team, and advocacy organizations to submit comments to the NIH, FDA, and other relevant agencies on issues related to animal research. For example, NIH regularly releases Requests for Information (RFIs), so staying informed about these opportunities helps ensure your input is considered and reflects the challenges your researchers are currently experiencing.
2. Meet with Federal Agency Staff. Institutional government affairs and communications offices can consider working with leadership to request listening sessions with key agency staff, including NIH DPCPSI, OLAW, FDA Office of the Chief Scientist, etc. These meetings could give institutions a chance to raise concerns about policy changes, funding uncertainties, and the practical effects your institution is experiencing related to research and training.
3. Educate and Empower IACUCs. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) can be not only essential resource during this evolving time in animal research policy but also a true champion when it comes to 3Rs, consideration of NAMs in research proposals, and policy compliance. Institutions should ensure they provide IACUCs and veterinary/animal care staff with tools and messaging needed to speak with confidence and clarity about the importance of animals in biomedical progress, the role of the 3Rs, and training the next generation of animal care specialists.
IACUCs are also important resources for responding to RFIs and other public engagement opportunities. Representatives, such as the Attending Veterinarian, should always be included in high-level leadership discussions on animal research and policy changes.
4. Cultivate a Strong Internal Culture. Researchers need to feel protected and supported in navigating evolving expectations about animal research and NAMs. Consider providing clear, consistent guidance to scientists preparing grant applications. Because the NIH policy changes have generated a whole host of confusion and uncertainty, institutions could consider offering one-pagers or FAQs that specify what agencies do and do not require. For example, be sure to emphasize that NIH is broadening eligibility in model selection, rather than excluding animal studies, as AR groups are leading the public to believe.
5. Strengthen Support for the Vertebrate Animals Section (VAS). The Vertebrate Animals Section is a required part of most NIH grant applications that involve live vertebrate animals. It plays a crucial role in justifying the ethical and scientific rationale for animal use, and it's increasingly a space where investigators feel pressure—whether real or perceived—to downplay or “over-explain” animal involvement in favor of NAMs. To help researchers navigate this landscape, institutions should ensure researchers understand the four NIH-required VAS criteria (a helpful OLAW module is available here) and provide tailored training and templates for writing a strong VAS. A few examples of what guidance should address include:
- Clearly justifying the use of animals based on the scientific aims
- How to describe steps taken to consider alternatives that are both honest and compliant
- Suggested language to explain the limitations of NAMs for certain research questions.