Lawmakers curb foreign animal research funding

Summary#

The Accountability in Foreign Animal Research Act is a proposed standalone federal law; it does not amend another Act. Its stated goal is to stop the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from conducting or funding certain animal research in specified foreign countries. The bill has been introduced and referred to a House committee; it is not law.

  • HHS could not conduct biomedical research involving tests on vertebrate animals in facilities or through entities located in, or owned or controlled by, China (including Hong Kong), Iran, North Korea, or Russia.
  • HHS also could not support such research, through grants, contracts, or other funding, when it is conducted by an entity based in one of those countries.
  • The HHS Secretary, consulting with the Secretaries of State and Defense, could add other countries considered countries of concern. The Secretary would have to report the reasons to specified congressional committees within 60 days.
  • The bill does not ban animal research generally, private funding of research, or research conducted in the United States.

What it means for you#

  • HHS: Would be barred from conducting or supporting the covered research described above.
  • Researchers and research institutions: HHS funding could not support covered research conducted by an entity based in one of the named or added countries. The bill does not explain how this would apply to research involving multiple institutions or locations.
  • Taxpayers and the public: The bill targets HHS research activity and funding. It does not impose a tax or fee, or create a general ban on animal testing.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s cost.

  • The bill requires HHS to report to Congress after adding a country, but gives no estimate of the cost of reports or any added staff or work.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not state when its restrictions would begin or how ongoing research or funding agreements would be handled.
  • It does not set criteria for deciding that another country is a country of concern.
  • It does not define key terms such as “biomedical research,” “vertebrate animals,” or “indirectly” conducting or supporting research.
  • It does not specify exceptions, an application or review process, or how the restrictions would interact with existing HHS programs.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it would prevent HHS from conducting or funding covered animal research in countries named in the bill.
  • The power to add countries could let HHS respond to concerns about countries not on the initial list.
  • Requiring a report explaining each addition could give Congress information about the Secretary’s reasoning.

Case against#

  • The restrictions cover direct and indirect activity and research by entities based in the listed countries, but the bill does not explain how those rules apply to projects spanning countries or institutions.
  • The bill gives no criteria for adding countries. The report is due after a decision; the bill does not require congressional approval.
  • Without definitions, exceptions, or transition rules, HHS and research institutions may have difficulty determining which activities or existing agreements are covered.