Overview
Title
To amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the National Institutes of Health from awarding any support for an activity or program that uses live animals in research unless the research occurs in the United States, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 1085 is a plan to make sure money from the United States for animal research is spent only in places in the U.S., so the animals are treated well and safe rules are followed.
Summary AI
H. R. 1085 seeks to amend the Public Health Service Act to stop the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from funding research that uses live animals outside of the United States. The bill, known as the "Cease Animal Research Grants Overseas Act of 2025" or the "CARGO Act of 2025," highlights that from 2011 to 2021, NIH provided substantial financial support to foreign organizations for such research and raised concerns about potential mistreatment of animals due to a lack of oversight. The proposed changes aim to ensure that all NIH-funded animal research is conducted within the United States, including its territories and possessions, to better regulate animal welfare standards.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the "Cease Animal Research Grants Overseas Act of 2025" or the "CARGO Act of 2025," aims to amend the Public Health Service Act. This bill seeks to restrict the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from providing financial support for research activities or programs that involve the use of live animals, unless such research is carried out within the United States, including its territories. The bill addresses concerns about the lack of oversight and potential animal mistreatment in NIH-funded research conducted abroad.
Summary of Significant Issues
A central issue raised by the bill is the potential limitation of international collaboration and the pooling of global expertise. Scientific research often benefits from diverse inputs and knowledge, and restricting NIH support to domestic institutions could hinder the progress of studies that require international cooperation.
The bill also highlights the insufficiency of oversight in foreign organizations that receive NIH funding. Currently, these organizations self-report compliance with animal welfare standards, which raises concerns about the accuracy of these reports. Without on-site inspections, there is an increased risk of misrepresented information and potential ethical violations.
Furthermore, the restructuring of legal subsections within the Public Health Service Act introduces complexity. Any inconsistencies in cross-references could lead to confusion in the interpretation and implementation of the act.
Potential Impact on the Public
The implementation of this bill could have varying impacts on the public. On a basic level, it may help ensure that taxpayer dollars are not supporting research that falls short of ethical standards concerning animal welfare. However, it could also restrict the scope of scientific research the United States can undertake, especially in fields that rely heavily on international collaboration. This might slow the progress of certain scientific advancements that could benefit from a global perspective.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Researchers and Scientific Institutions: The prohibition on using NIH funds for animal research conducted outside the United States could negatively impact research institutions and scientists that rely on international partnerships. Some research areas, particularly those involving cases found primarily in other countries or interdisciplinary collaborations, may experience setbacks.
Animal Rights Advocates: For stakeholders focused on animal welfare, the bill could be seen as a positive step towards ensuring higher standards of care, as NIH projects would be subject to the United States' regulatory oversight.
Foreign Research Institutions: Institutions outside the United States that previously benefited from NIH funding for animal research projects may face challenges due to the loss of financial support. The absence of this funding could impact ongoing and future research initiatives.
Conclusion
The CARGO Act of 2025 endeavors to reassess the NIH's funding policies in relation to animal research conducted abroad. While the intention to enhance animal welfare oversight is commendable, the broader restrictions might inadvertently impede international scientific collaboration and the advancement of certain research domains. Balancing these considerations requires careful deliberation to ensure ethical standards without compromising scientific progress.
Financial Assessment
The text of H. R. 1085 provides insights into the financial aspects concerning NIH funding directed towards animal research conducted outside the United States. An important aspect of this bill is its focus on restricting the flow of funds to international research organizations, aiming to redirect these resources within the national borders.
Financial Summary and Implications
The bill highlights that from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2021, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided approximately $2.2 billion to foreign organizations for research projects involving animals. This significant sum underscores the extent of U.S. investment in international research efforts over a decade.
This bill seeks to halt this stream of funding going towards research using live animals conducted abroad. By doing so, it aims to ensure that all such financial resources could potentially be redirected to similar research initiatives within the United States, thereby potentially leading to more rigorous oversight of animal welfare standards in accordance with domestic regulations.
Related Issues
The redirection of NIH funds addresses concerns about the lack of inspections at foreign organizations, which raises ethical issues related to animal welfare. Funds provided to international organizations have relied on self-reported information, which poses risks of misrepresentation and misuse of public resources. Through the proposed amendment, the United States seeks to mitigate these risks by enforcing domestic oversight standards that accompany national funding.
However, the implementation of this financial redirection could present challenges. By eliminating funding for international projects, the bill reduces opportunities for global collaboration and access to worldwide expertise, which could be seen as a hurdle for scientific advancement. This restriction might limit the breadth of innovative research that benefits from diverse scientific inputs, ultimately impacting fields reliant on global perspectives and collaboration.
Moreover, the abruptness of this funding cessation raises concerns about ongoing projects that have long depended on NIH support. There is no clarity in the bill on the transition management for existing international commitments, leaving current research initiatives in a state of uncertainty. This could lead to a potential financial strain on ongoing projects that are midstream and reliant on promised funding, potentially causing disruptions in scientific progress and associated workforce employment.
In conclusion, while the bill aims to address essential ethical and oversight concerns by controlling financial allocations, it consequently raises questions about international cooperation and the seamless execution of active research projects. These shifts exemplify the complexities inherent in redirecting significant public resources amidst stringent policy alterations.
Issues
The prohibition of NIH support for research using live animals outside of the United States could significantly limit international collaboration and access to global expertise, potentially hindering scientific progress in fields that benefit from diverse input. (Section 3)
The lack of NIH inspections on foreign organizations and reliance on self-reported information raises concerns about the potential for misrepresentation of animal welfare standards, which could lead to ethical issues and misuse of public funds. (Sections 2 and 3)
The restructuring of subsections and references within the legislation could create confusion or errors in understanding the Public Health Service Act, which might impact its implementation. (Section 3)
The definition of 'United States' used in the bill does not specify the inclusion of foreign military bases or embassies, creating ambiguity about the scope of the prohibition. (Section 3)
There is a lack of clarity on how the transition will be managed for existing international research projects under contract that rely on NIH funding, creating uncertainty for ongoing research. (Section 3)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill establishes that it can be referred to as the “Cease Animal Research Grants Overseas Act of 2025” or simply the “CARGO Act of 2025”.
2. Findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress has identified several issues: between 2011 and 2021, about $2.2 billion was given to foreign organizations by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for research involving animals, but the NIH does not inspect these organizations and relies on their self-reported animal welfare information, which raises concerns about accuracy and potential animal mistreatment due to inadequate oversight.
Money References
- Congress finds the following: (1) From fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2021, the National Institutes of Health provided approximately $2.2 billion to foreign organizations for research projects involving animals.
3. No NIH support for use of live animals in research by persons outside of the United States Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill introduces changes to Section 495 of the Public Health Service Act, specifying that the National Institutes of Health is prohibited from providing financial support for research involving live animals if the research is conducted outside the United States. The term "United States" includes all states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.