S.1802 - Cease Animal Research Grants Overseas Act of 2025; CARGO Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
The Cease Animal Research Grants Overseas Act of 2025 (CARGO Act of 2025) aims to amend the Public Health Service Act. It seeks to prohibit the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from awarding support for activities or programs that use live animals in research unless the research occurs within the United States. The bill cites concerns over the lack of oversight and potential mistreatment of animals in foreign research projects funded by the NIH.
Expected Effects
If enacted, the CARGO Act would redirect NIH funding for animal research to domestic institutions. This could lead to increased research activity within the US. It may also impact international collaborations and potentially slow down certain areas of research if specialized expertise or resources are primarily available overseas.
Potential Benefits
- Increased oversight and potentially improved animal welfare in NIH-funded research.
- Stimulation of the US research sector by concentrating funding domestically.
- Greater transparency and accountability in the use of taxpayer dollars for animal research.
- Potential for increased public trust in NIH-funded research due to enhanced domestic oversight.
- Alignment with domestic ethical standards for animal research.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential disruption of ongoing research projects and collaborations with foreign institutions.
- Possible limitations on access to unique research environments or expertise available only overseas.
- Increased costs if domestic research facilities are less efficient or require significant upgrades.
- Potential for retaliatory measures from other countries, impacting international scientific cooperation.
- May hinder research on diseases prevalent in specific regions outside the US.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power to allocate funds for the general welfare. The act does not appear to infringe upon any specific constitutional rights or protections. However, the constitutionality of restricting funding based on geographic location has been debated, but generally upheld as within the purview of congressional spending power.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).