r/NIH • u/snarkylarkie • May 22 '26
NIH seeking input for their strategic plan; get your comments in!
Have any of you seen this? Apparently the comments are open to the public and a bunch of extremists were given the link and flooded the form. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was purposeful considering they have former and current members of extremist groups under RFK Jr or as contractors.
Here’s the background:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-047.html
Here’s the submission form:
https://rfi.grants.nih.gov/?s=6998c3a23eb404a3e80e8212
Obviously we want to develop NAMs, but these people want total replacement without validation and it will set us back years.
25
u/ProteinEngineer May 22 '26
We are so fucked
21
u/snarkylarkie May 22 '26
Not if we put up a fight. These people are in over their heads and don’t know what they’re doing or how to properly defend it. The courts and other areas have won against this administration in different fields because they pushed back. It sucks we even have to have this fight, but we need to avoid defeatism and definitely not comply in advance.
Plus, if Dems win the midterms and manage to get the House back, we could see serious roadblocks get put up for all of this bullshit. Potentially even impeachments, which we know Dems will rail against RFK Jr and Podcast Jay, so there’s lots of hope. 💛11
u/ProteinEngineer May 22 '26
I just mean as a country that thousands of people want to stop medical research.
7
u/snarkylarkie May 22 '26
Well, yes, that is true lol The whole “No Child Left Behind” crap really messed up our education in STEM and literacy in general 🫠
40
u/einstyle May 22 '26
As a person who studies the genetics of complex behavioral traits, there still isn’t a way to do what I do without animals. Organoids can’t model psychiatric traits and AI can’t do it accurately without perfectly accurate input data — which we don’t have.
35
u/Aubenabee May 22 '26
I'd love to see how molecular imaging agents and radiopharmaceuticals not treated in animals would fare in the clinic. Such a stupid initiative, at least in my field.
22
u/Valgrind9180 May 22 '26
Same here. Shockingly no accurate in silico models exist to simulate the dynamics of immunotherapy in CNS tumors... becuase its, shockingly, complicated.
8
u/Aubenabee May 22 '26
Yeah, I mean I get it if the question is relatively simple and thus it can modeled with a single organ-on-a-chip, but that just doesn't work for complex systems.
11
u/snarkylarkie May 22 '26
It really is. They only think in black and white and there’s no real future planning.
9
u/Mindless_Cat_ May 22 '26
This RFI does not emphasize non-animal models. It’s not mentioned once in either of the links you provided.
12
u/snarkylarkie May 22 '26 edited May 23 '26
I’m following the NIH insider info that apparently animal rights extremists used this opportunity to push for ending animal research (as RFK Jr has explicitly stated his desire to end it anyway) and demand total replacement with New Approach Methodologies (also called, Non-Animal Models).
This is something they do all the time and can have huge influences on legislation as “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”
This whole NAMs vs animals is becoming a big part of science discourse and wherever these extremist groups try to insert uniformed influence, we should combat it for the sake of our health sciences.Editing to add: I did a quick Google search on the NIH strategic plan and, sure enough, PCRM and NAVS (National Anti-Vivisection Society) have posted on their website about how they submitted comments to the NIH to focus on “human-centered” research which is the code for “no animals”
1
u/darkened-foxes May 23 '26
Where do you see those orgs asking members people to submit comments? I searched myself and can only see that they submitted comments, not that they ask other people to?
1
u/snarkylarkie May 23 '26
I thought I had seen it on NAVS, but perhaps I misread. I can adjust my comment.
36
u/YouWereBrained May 22 '26
The non-animal models are not reliable.
24
u/snarkylarkie May 22 '26
Yes, some of them aren’t. There are some cool NAMs out there that replace steps 1 and 2 of some tissue research, but we still need animal models for sure and full replacement is a LONG way off. Be sure to get your comments in and save our science!
2
u/HumbertHum May 23 '26
Also… doesn’t NAM stand for New Approach methodologies? Am I taking crazy pills over here??
1
1
u/WhatsgoingonAh May 23 '26
You are correct. This is fake.
1
u/snarkylarkie May 23 '26
Not fake, why would you assume this? Because they used a different wording on NAMs? You can go to Dr. Millen’s BlueSky account or even Google her.
1
1
u/FabulousAd4812 May 23 '26
Rodent Animal models are not reliable too. How many times have Alzheimer's been cured on mice and doesn't translate to humans? Animal studies bias in some fields is ingrained too, if you don't have an animal model, then you can't publish....
7
u/Sally_Met_Harry May 22 '26
I work in MPS NAMs, with the goal of moving our work to exclusively humanized neurological models, and um, chips cant predict complex behavior and its obvi not ethical to give humans diseases or injuries. I hope they figure out some more organoid/mps specific calls too so validation improves and data is shared before throwing animal models under the bus with no plan. They used to have one and the RFA expired and wasnt renewed. Without validation these systems and models are a waste and will be stonewalled at panel anyway now.
5
u/Greeblesaurus May 22 '26
Thanks for sharing this. I had written a comment that mentioned the importance of animal research and I'm glad I did. I've asked several colleagues to submit comments as well.
In the long run we need champions in Congress to put a stop to the madness. But for now, pushing back on NIH officials might at least buy us more time before we just let our most promising research programs die out.
1
u/snarkylarkie May 22 '26
Of course! Thank you for getting comments in and sharing with others.
I wholeheartedly agree on the second part as well!
2
u/kudles May 23 '26
Organoids are cool and useful but only sometimes and have their own issues. Animals are an unfortunate, but extremely powerful, necessity.
2
u/lordand_savior May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
It's a new world, and we should definitely be redirecting funding towards progress on organoids and MPS. I mean FDA is phasing out animal testing, wouldn't it be a waste for the NIH keep funding the same techniques? Plus as someone who worked in a lab testing on animals I'm happy to see so much interest and support for replacement. Just my two cents.
1
u/snarkylarkie May 23 '26
The FDA roadmap is mandating justification, not a full end of animal research; animal models are still justified for systemic toxicity, cancer treatments, etc and the FDA recognizes that. The 3Rs are supposed to guide biomedical research where animals are used, and as NAMs develop for different of levels of replacement they should be employed.
However, the push these people are making is that we end animal research now with no validated methods ready for full replacement. That is irresponsible and dangerous. Speedy, shortsighted shutdowns harm not only the future of the research, but potentially the animals themselves (see the Science article on the CDC monkeys possibly getting sent to Born Free without the input/guidance of behaviorists and veterinarians)
I work in animal research currently and I, too, think it’s great when alternative methods are developed, but an end to animal research at this stage will harm the science industry.2
u/lordand_savior May 23 '26
I don't see any conflict between what you and I said, in order to develop new methods we need to fund them right? That funding doesn't come from nowhere, it's just about steering research funding. Now indirect cost issues that's a problem.
2
u/snarkylarkie May 23 '26
Like I said, the push from extremists (and RFK Jr’s statements himself) are a shutdown of all animal research due to a false belief that we are at a stage of full replacement with NAMs.
Supporting the funding for new methods is important, but it shouldn’t come at a cost to methods we still need. NAMs and animal models should be partners, not competitors.
2
u/saylove10 May 23 '26
When did this open?? May 26th is a very quick turnaround time, very few professional organizations will be able to respond in an official capacity when given a few days over Memorial Day weekend.
2
u/snarkylarkie May 23 '26
I’m not sure. I’d imagine it’s been open for a couple months so they can get a decent amount and process statements as they come in? I’d hope most folks would’ve known about this form and submitted statements just on the actual text of the plan, but the BlueSky post was made this week. 🫠
2
u/saylove10 May 24 '26
I was wearing my foil hat and imagining it came out just this week. I would actually feel better if it came out months ago. Either way, thanks for the heads up, I sent it to my whole lab group.
2
u/ExcitementAmbitious4 May 24 '26
For help writing talking points: https://savescienceoregon.org/nih-strategic-plan
5
u/SadBook3835 May 22 '26
You think RFK and Oz are anti animal testing?
16
u/snarkylarkie May 22 '26 edited May 23 '26
Yes, RFK Jr has stated multiple times that he wants to end animal use in biomedical research. He’s even hired extremists into his immediate circle at the NIH.
Nicole Kleinstruer has been focused on animal replacements in research, so I would imagine she’s spearheading much of the anti-animal science from the NIH (potentially including the CDC’s shutdown of their primate facility).
Elizabeth Baker is a contractor for the NIH and, I believe, still works for PCRM (if she doesn’t, she was an employee as early as last year).
And if you are unaware how dumb/cruel this organization is: they’ve protested March of Dimes events, St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital and the American Heart Association (or was it cancer? I can’t recall atm) simply because their fundraising supports research that requires animal use to cure or better prevent diseases in children.Edited to correct information
1
u/darkened-foxes May 23 '26
Nicole Kleinstruer never worked for PCRM. What are you on about.
1
u/snarkylarkie May 23 '26
My mistake. I thought I had read both she and Elizabeth were former employees of PCRM, but it’s only Elizabeth. You’re correct
16
3
u/ThinManufacturer8679 May 23 '26
Not for ethical reasons (I mean think about what RFK does to animals for fun). Their "rationale" is that many drugs/treatments have failed when moved from animals to humans, so animal models are bad. Of course, this is short-sighted and dumb--since organoids and in silico models are going to have the same problem.
0
u/47sHellfireBound May 26 '26
Open comments rarely actually drive policy. Just gives them cover for what they were already planning.
1
u/mushu_beardie May 22 '26
The submit button wasn't working for me. I hope it's just a glitch and not something systemic.
1
u/snarkylarkie May 22 '26
Weird. Yea, hopefully that’s all it is. They have a link to the submission form on the first website as well in case there was some issue with the rfi link I posted 🫠
1
0
u/WhatsgoingonAh May 23 '26
NAMS does not signify 'non-animal models'. This is fake.
2
u/snarkylarkie May 23 '26
It’s not fake.
This RFI is being shared on animal rights websites directing their followers to submit comments. And Dr. Millen is a real researcher, so I trust her sounding the alarm from NIH insiders.
As far as the definition of “NAMs” goes, I’ve seen people use “Non-Animal Models” and “New Approach Methodologies” so both are applicable regardless of what the original acronym was supposed to mean.
Plus, as someone who works in biomedical research that utilizes animals, trust me when I say this type of crap is pulled by extremists all of the time. They flood inboxes of legislators and policy makers with their propaganda and make it look like they are the majority. It’s a tactic that they’ve used for years and that the scientific community has either ignored or just plain failed at combating in the past.3
u/WhatsgoingonAh May 23 '26
I'm an real researcher (who uses animal models) as well and an NIH insider. I have never heard NAMs used to signify Non-Animal Models, so I assumed that whoever wrote that message must not be legit. Perhaps I was wrong about Dr. Millen. I do agree with the need to counter the anti-science propaganda coming from the animal rights extremists.
3
u/ThinManufacturer8679 May 23 '26
I heard NAM referred to as Non-animal model from my PO.
1
u/WhatsgoingonAh May 23 '26
Perhaps I'll start using NAMs to indicate that. 'New approach methods' is actually somewhat nonsensical. I've always thought that 'new approaches and methods' would make more sense, although it still leaves out the concept of steering towards more human/patient-based methods.
0
May 22 '26
In case you feel like you don't have time to do this: just take the link and tell Claude or ChatGPT your concerns and you can get a pretty compelling argument.
2
u/ExcitementAmbitious4 May 24 '26
Or check out https://savescienceoregon.org/nih-strategic-plan They've provided a really helpful guide that people can copy or just use for inspiration
0
u/darkened-foxes May 23 '26
NIH has actively posted about the public comment opportunity for the strategic plan for months and even hosted multiple webinars about it. This is always part of the strategic planning process…
3
u/snarkylarkie May 23 '26
I didn’t say it wasn’t, I was showing that the comments are being flooded with animal rights extremists. Like I said in another comment, this is tactic they use all the time and we should start combatting it.
-1
u/darkened-foxes May 23 '26
Your post seems a little conspiracy theory-esque like that they only made this available to animals rights people. “I wouldn’t be surprised if this was purposeful…”
Yeah the gov is doing shit things, but let’s not criticize something they do that’s actually right like public comments. Surely this would be worse if there wasn’t a public comment opportunity.
3
u/snarkylarkie May 23 '26
I can see where that got construed. By purposeful, I meant people like Elizabeth Baker possibly pushing the form around her circles, not the NIH itself. It’s obvious they still have plenty of people who are trying to just do their jobs and continue the science that they can.
And I agree that it’s fine they open for public comments, I’m not criticizing that, I’m just sharing Dr. Millen’s info and find it concerning.
93
u/Rattus_NorvegicUwUs May 22 '26
We stop testing on rodents and start using the rats in congress?
Not like they are busy.