We support the HEARTS Act to increase the use of humane alternatives to animals in US funded research
Join us by contacting your US Representative today!
Posted in Campaigns
We support the HEARTS Act to increase the use of humane alternatives to animals in US funded research
Cruelty Free International estimates that the United States uses over 13 million animals in experiments each year making the US the 3rd largest animal user in the world behind China and Japan. The concern about animal testing goes beyond animal welfare. There is a growing awareness of the limitations of animal research and its inability to make reliable predictions for human clinical trials
Modern non-animal methods not only spare animals from pain and death, they are increasingly better at predicting human response. Nearly everyone can agree that non-animal methods should be used as soon as they are available to replace the use of animals.
However, U.S. law does not require that experimenters use available alternatives.
As a result, the millions of animals used in research experiments annually in the US and the over 12 billion tax-payer dollars spent by the National Institute of Health (NIH) each year on animal experiments maybe used/spent where modern non-animal alternatives could have been used instead.
This is why Cruelty Free International is supporting the Humane and Existing Alternatives in Research and Testing Sciences Act [The HEARTS Act H.R. 1209] introduced by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA).
The bill would amend the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 to:
- provide meaningful incentives for the use of scientifically satisfactory non-animal alternatives in research proposals seeking NIH funding.
- require that investigators fully evaluate available non-animal methods using standardized search guidelines.
- ensure that research proposals are reviewed by at least one person with expertise in non-animal research methods and that reviewers have access to a reference librarian with expertise in evaluating the adequacy of the search methods used for alternatives.
- require harm-benefit analyses of proposed animal studies