Dogs shouldn’t have to die for new medications

Modern medications have transformed health care, turning once-fatal diseases into manageable conditions. Statins have significantly reduced heart disease deaths. GLP-1 drugs are revolutionizing obesity treatment.

But the path to these breakthroughs has come at a callous cost — thanks to outdated, unnecessary regulations from the Food and Drug Administration.

Images of week-old puppies convulsing from drug overdoses may finally become a thing of the past.

Each year, U.S. labs use roughly 50 million animals in drug testing, including rodents, monkeys, dogs, and cats. Much of this often cruel experimentation stems from FDA mandates that require animal testing for drug approval.

At last, that’s beginning to change.

Thanks to the bipartisan efforts of Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act 3.0 in December. The bill allows sponsors to use alternative testing methods that don’t harm living things. The FDA has proven remarkably receptive to these efforts, recently announcing measures to phase out animal testing requirements. With continued momentum, animal testing may soon be gone for good.

Recent reforms have reignited a fierce and emotional debate over the role of animal testing in medical innovation. Many researchers still defend the practice. Jim Newman, communications director for Americans for Medical Progress, argues that alternatives remain in their infancy and won’t become fully reliable “for many, many years.”

While some animal testing may still serve a purpose, the FDA has long abused the practice, imposing requirements that are often cruel, costly, and slow-moving.

Take the case of Vanda Pharmaceuticals. The company pushed back when the FDA ordered it to euthanize dogs after testing its gastroparesis drug, Tradipitant. Vanda had already run extensive tests on rats and dogs, including prolonged exposure at doses up to 300 times higher than those intended for humans. No safety concerns emerged. The FDA had even approved human trials.

But when Vanda sought to extend treatment beyond three months, regulators demanded yet another round of dog testing — this time with mandatory euthanasia. The agency offered no scientific rationale, no public justification — only a bureaucratic decree.

The real cost wasn’t just animal lives. An estimated 1.5 million Americans suffer from gastroparesis and face delayed access to treatment. Yet the FDA prevailed in court, thanks to its unchecked power to require animal testing with no meaningful oversight.

Paul and Booker aim to disrupt the FDA’s outdated, inhumane testing regime. Their bipartisan reform would give companies like Vanda the power to reject animal testing when safer, more advanced alternatives exist.

One such alternative uses microchips that simulate the human body’s biological systems. These “organ-on-a-chip” technologies allow researchers to see how drugs affect human tissue — without harming a single animal.

Wider adoption of chip-based testing could cut research and development costs between 10% and 26%, while sparing countless animals from needless pain and death. Images of week-old puppies convulsing from drug overdoses may finally become a thing of the past.

These alternatives may also produce better science. A report from the National Institutes of Health found that animal models often fail to accurately replicate human disease or predict drug responses — delaying breakthroughs and wasting money while patients wait.

With the right pressure from Congress, the FDA can move away from a system rooted in cruelty and toward one grounded in modern science. The status quo is not just outdated. It’s indefensible.