Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Dogs Subjected to Experiments Act
Description: This bill prohibits the National Institutes of Health from funding biological, medical, or behavioral research that involves testing dogs.
Sponsors: Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]
Target Audience
Population: People working in or affected by research involving dogs
Estimated Size: 60000
- The use of dogs in biomedical research is a global practice, affecting a wide range of research facilities worldwide.
- Various countries have different regulations and practices concerning the use of animals in research, and the U.S. is a significant contributor to global scientific research.
- This act focuses on NIH-funded research, which is significant as it is a major source of funding for such experiments in the U.S., but its influence also affects the standards and ethical considerations globally.
Reasoning
- The NIH's funding has significant reach in the United States, so targeting experiments conducted in the country has a non-negligible impact.
- Budgetary restrictions mean a gradual influence where initial effects may not fully reflect potential long-term outcomes.
- Given the U.S. legislative environment, changes in NIH funding practices may lead to adjustments in research methodologies, impacting researchers and associated supply chains.
- A broad swath of public opinions can be present as people outside direct research practices (e.g., dog owners and animal rights activists) may perceive the policy positively.
Simulated Interviews
Veterinary Scientist (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a positive step towards more humane research practices.
- It encourages scientists like myself to pursue alternatives that are already in development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Biomedical Researcher (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy complicates the progress of ongoing research projects that depend on canine studies.
- It may require reallocating resources to pursue alternative models or methodologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Animal Rights Activist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such policies are vital for advancing ethical standards in research.
- I hope they extend to other animals used for testing in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
NIH Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy requires careful budget adjustment and could lead to methodical shifts in animal research protocols.
- It serves as an encouraging step for ethical science balancing progress with welfare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Pharmaceutical Researcher (Houston, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will require re-evaluation of current projects that rely on canines, potentially slowing down deliverables.
- Finding non-dog models for certain high-fidelity studies will be challenging in the short term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
University Professor (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act aligns research practices with ethical considerations, an essential balance.
- It sets a precedent for international practices, which could shift due to U.S. leadership.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Grad Student in Veterinary Medicine (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am supportive of policies reducing animal testing and promoting ethical research methods.
- It might influence my career positively when considering ethics-based research opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Dog Owner (Denver, CO)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this reinforce the value we place on our community’s pets.
- As a dog owner, it’s reassuring to see such steps towards caring for these animals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Tech Industry Employee (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn’t directly affect me but contributes positively to societal values on animal treatment.
- I see it as a minor improvement in general societal wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Animal Behavior Researcher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should encourage non-invasive methodologies and support our kind of work.
- We hope it leads to better funding opportunities for humane research practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $8000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- Transitioning from using dogs in research will require investment in alternative research models.
- There is a balance of costs in the short term versus savings and ethical benefits in the long term.
- The bill might encourage international research communities to also reassess their use of animals in biomedical research.