Animal research is irreplaceable
I spent my entire research career working on animals. In this case, the animals were Drosophila melanogaster, or “fruit flies.” I dissected tens of thousands of larval salivary glands because their giant polytene chromosomes afforded a relatively high resolution map of the genome. I made over 100 transgenic lines to gain insight into gene function. I screened tens of thousands of flies in mutagenesis screens to identify mutations that answered questions about genetics. And of course, much of my research rested on a literature of science using flies.
Now I understand that some folks consider flies to be vermin. Their status as invertebrates places them beneath the notice of the NIH rules on animal care. But much of our lifesaving vaccines, drugs, devices and surgical techniques relied on research using vertebrate models, rodents and primates in particular.
Yes, I know we’ve cured cancer in mice hundreds of times in ways that didn’t translate to cancer in humans. But I wouldn’t take a vaccine or drug or accept a transplant or surgical procedure that hadn’t first been tested in appropriate animal models, nor would I want my loved ones to have to. YMMV.
While great strides have been made in computational modeling and organoid research, I cannot foresee a time when whole animal research/testing will be dispensable. So RFK Jr’s push to abandon non-human primate research is deeply dangerous.
“While less reliance on animal testing can be a good thing, we’re particularly alarmed by Secretary Kennedy’s fixation on non-human primates because it reflects a broader pattern in the Trump administration: hostility toward infectious-disease research. But non-human primates are essential to advances in this field. While alternative models are valuable for specific mechanistic questions, non-human primates are uniquely capable of modeling the full immunologic and clinical course of HIV infection, for example. Non-human primates have also been essential to studying diseases like Zika, Alzheimer’s, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, and many others. Without these studies, many of the most consequential advances in antiretroviral therapy, immune modulation, and cure-directed strategies likely would not exist.
“Those advances did not happen by chance, nor did they emerge from so-called “high-tech methods” alone. They are the product of decades of federally funded primate research that established the biological rules that make it possible to move complex, high-risk interventions into human trials without repeating historical disasters. To dismiss this work as expendable is to erase the evidence that has led to functional cure strategies and life-saving treatments. Weakening that foundation does not make the country healthier or more ethical; it makes it more vulnerable.”
If RFK Jr’s benighted policies come to pass in the US, it will result in offshoring that research to more enlightened countries. But the pace of discovery of life-saving therapies will slow and American preeminence in biomedical research will slip even further than it already has.
RFK Jr wants to ban primate research

Animal research would be useful in understanding the impact of UFPs on health.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-31884-4
@John,
Indeed. It is useful and it confirms what I’ve been saying all along. UPFs are not “poison.”
From your link:
“Our results, together with the fact that minimal biometric alterations were found, points towards daily administration of a single UPF having a relatively small effect on body composition and health. This pattern of administration also had small effects on macronutrient intake, since it only resulted in higher total fat and sugar intakes, while having no effect on total protein and carbohydrate intake. More notably, it induced minimal sex differences on macronutrient intake, only affecting fat intake which was higher in males than females. Higher increases in males than in females in fat intake compared to control diets have been reported previously in high-fat diet models. Even though this experiment was originally designed to be used to develop the final UPF diet, it could be considered a model of sporadic UPF snacking, which according to our results would result in minimal alterations.”
“Minimal alterations” is not a term commonly associated with poisons.
6 weeks, 48 rats, intermittent snacking…hardly conclusive, but a lot of yellow flags.
Lead poisoning does not necessarily show a lot of symptoms in children, either, particularly over short term.
More study of UPFs definitely warranted.
@John,
LOL! Polonium poisoning shows symptoms pretty quickly. So does cyanide and arsenic poisoning. So does carbon monoxide poisoning.
Six weeks for rats is a long time. They typically only live ≤ 3 years. 48 rats is pretty big for an animal study. What did the power calculation say was a sufficient number? What effect size was expected?
What hypotheses about UPFs require further study, in your professional view?
LOL! Who said anything about polonium, arsenic or carbon monoxide?
Since when is 4% of a rat’s life a long term study, particularly for lifetime effects? Intermittent smoking for 3-4 years probably won’t poison you either…
As to further study, why not look at common, artificial UPF ingredients’ cumulative effects thought to contribute to heart disease and diabetes, such as higher body mass index, waist size, blood pressure, insulin levels, and blood triglyceride levels? Some of these effects were noted in the study in the article.
Since when are substances eventually causing heart disease and diabetes are not considered poisons, or at the least seriously harmful?
@John,
LOL!
“Who said anything about polonium, arsenic or carbon monoxide?” I did. They are all examples of poisons. Hope that helps.
“Since when is 4% of a rat’s life a long term study, particularly for lifetime effects?”
Nobody said that 4% of a rat’s life is a lifetime study. But 4% of a rat’s lifetime is ample to test whether the treatment is poisonous.
“Intermittent smoking for 3-4 years probably won’t poison you either.”
Right. Because cigarette smoke is not considered a poison (although it does contain nicotine and carbon monoxide, which can be poisonous in large amounts). Tobacco is considered a carcinogen, which is not the same thing.
“As to further study, why not look at common, artificial UPF ingredients’ cumulative effects thought to contribute to heart disease and diabetes, such as higher body mass index, waist size, blood pressure, insulin levels, and blood triglyceride levels? Some of these effects were noted in the study in the article.”
Yes, and as I quoted, the effects were minimal. In your study design, how would you distinguish between the direct effects of UPFs and the effect of displacing calories from other sources? Cumulative effects of sedentary lifestyle also contribute to heart disease, higher body mass index, waist size, blood pressure, insulin levels, and blood triglyceride levels.
“Since when are substances eventually causing heart disease and diabetes are not considered poisons, or at the least seriously harmful?”
Obesity can cause heart disease and diabetes (and cancer!), but obesity isn’t considered a poison. Not everything that’s harmful is a poison. Guns and knives can also be harmful, as can automobiles. Nobody considers guns, knives or cars to be poisons.
Tobacco smoke may not be a poison, but nicotine is.
While acute poisoning from nicotine is unrelated to smoking, chronic poisoning is. And it is chronic poisoning from UFPs, like chronic smoking from smoking tobacco, that needs to be studied. Sure, smoking a pack of cigarettes tonight won’t kill you right away. Neither will ingesting UPFs. However, the long term effects of smoking are well known, but the potential chronic poisoning effects of additives designed in food labs are not.
If you want to assert that substances like lead are not poisons, because the harm is not immediate, well, fine, as long as you make your special definition clear. But if you consider the potential for chronic poisoning, you should definitely research the safety of food additives, particularly brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, and artificial sweeteners like aspartame.
@John,
As I made clear in my comment, nicotine is a poison in large amounts.
Ethanol is a poison, both acutely in large amounts and as a result of chronic consumption in high amounts. There is significant genetic variation in the metabolism of ethanol (see, e.g., the “Asian flush”). The US experimented with banning ethanol in beverages, but the cure proved worse than the disease.
The FDA banned the use of brominated vegetable oil in human food in the United States as of August 2024. It isn’t a food additive in the US.
Potassium bromate is a carcinogen, not a poison. Of course, arsenic (a poison) is found in significant amounts in most rice, and higher amounts in brown rice compared to white rice. Acrylamide is both a neurotoxin and a carcinogen, and is found in most baked goods. Sunlight is a known carcinogen. As any toxicologist or pharmacologist will tell you, the dose makes the poison.
Aspartame is considered safe. While a recent study of consumption of artificially sweetened soda indicated an increased risk for dementia, the risk disappeared when obese and diabetic subjects were excluded. Obesity and diabetes are themselves risk factors for dementia.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/frequent-diet-soda-intake-linked-fourfold-increased-dementia-2026a10002zn?fbclid=IwY2xjawPqwAVleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFIVW92OEZ2bGpZUjdpYnNqc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHsmpgVlF5fytsENuOUl4U6UZnskIJxlo1NsElLdbmD-UdORtCGgpTqBPeCFc_aem_OhIsaMGuwRYli9Q_Yet6tQ