Following increased scrutiny in recent years by the General Assembly into issues involving animals used in research and testing, Chapters 675 and 693 of the 2024 Acts of Assembly (Acts) required the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), in collaboration with the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), to convene a Task Force on Transparency in Publicly Funded Animal Testing Facilities (Task Force) for the purpose of identifying potential deficiencies in publicly funded animal testing facilities, as that term is defined in § 3.2-6593.2 of the Code of Virginia, and recommending methods and context for making certain information about such animal testing facilities publicly available. The Task Force convened three separate in-person meetings (July 26, 2024; August 30, 2024; and September 20, 2024) to discuss the existing framework for reporting animal testing statistics, the deficiencies in the existing framework, and ways to build upon or alter that framework to address the concerns of both the public and the publicly funded animal testing facilities. Additionally, the Task Force held an all-virtual meeting on October 11, 2024, to discuss the draft version of this report to the General Assembly. The Acts require the Task Force to report its findings and recommendations to the House Committees on Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources; Finance; and Appropriations and the Senate Committees on Agriculture, Conservation, and Natural Resources and Finance and Appropriations by November 1, 2024. This report documents the work of the Task Force and summarizes the Task Force's discussions and recommendations.

Summary and Recommendations

The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly continue to explore the following areas when considering future legislation:

DEFICIENCIES IN TRANSPARENCY IDENTIFIED BY TASK FORCE MEMBERS

During the Task Force’s meetings, while some members expressed the opinion that no deficiencies in the transparency of publicly funded animal testing facilities currently exist, other members identified the following deficiencies:

(i) A lack of Virginia-specific data

(ii) An overreliance on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to access data, and the difficulty and unreliability of the FOIA process

(iii) Animals that are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act are not included in available data (i.e., rodents, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians)

(iv) A lack of public accessibility to data in the possession of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees

(v) Current reporting and data are not comprehensive or consolidated and available information is often disaggregated due to separate reporting regimes and organizations

RECOMMENDATIONS OF TASK FORCE MEMBERS

(i) Utilizing SCHEV’s website for information and reporting

The Task Force recommends that SCHEV use its website to host additional information about animal testing at publicly funded institutions. While some Task Force members were hesitant to lend their full support to this proposal without first discussing the potential content of new reporting requirements, the Task Force agreed that SCHEV should be the contact point for any new information or reporting requirements on animal testing.

(ii) Making existing reports accessible

Much of the Task Force’s discussions revolved around what information and reports already exist and how the public can access them. The General Assembly may wish to consider options for making existing animal testing reports that publicly funded animal testing facilities already generate accessible to the public by means other than Freedom of Information Act requests, such as by collecting and posting these reports on SCHEV’s website, and in a manner that minimizes the reporting requirements on publicly funded animal testing facilities.

(iii) Creating a Virginia-specific report

The area with the least amount of consensus from the Task Force concerned the creation of new reporting requirements. The Task Force was unable to reach consensus on this proposal due to the uncertainty as to what specifically will be required in such a report. While most members of the Task Force were supportive of a report that demonstrates progress towards the “3 Rs" (replacement, reduction, refinement), the Task Force was unable to achieve consensus on how to best measure that progress.

When considering whether to mandate Virginia-specific reporting requirements, the General Assembly should take into account the fiscal impact on universities, the administrative burden on researchers, and the effect of these requirements on attracting researchers to Virginia universities. Should the General Assembly deem a Virginia-specific report appropriate, elements of the report that the General Assembly may wish to consider are:

(i) Whether the report will be narrative or include quantifiable metrics

(ii) The inclusion of all vertebrate animals, except for fish and agricultural animals

(iii) Reporting a count of all animals in the care of the institution at the end of a reporting period

(iv) Reporting on acquisitions and dispositions of animals throughout the reporting period

(v) Considering whether the report would require research institutions to collect point- in-time data once during the reporting period or to collect data throughout the reporting period

(vi) Providing certain allowances or exceptions for counting rats and mice (e.g., allowing rats and mice to be counted using cages or estimates or excluding rats and mice from counts of animals bred at the facility)

(vii) The inclusion of other information that is already collected and reported to other organizations by the research facility

(viii) Transparency in the allocation of public funds to procure and maintain animals in testing facilities