Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Research Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill to require non-animal test methods where federal alternatives exist (amended)
Summary
Sen. Ben Kramer presented SB 423 (amended) to require use of validated non-animal testing methods for certain products when federal agencies have approved alternatives or granted waivers; amendments exclude drugs and vaccines and exempt universities from portions of the bill. Supporters argued the measure advances human-relevant science; opponents raised ethical objections in virtual testimony.
Sen. Ben Kramer presented Senate Bill 423, the Animal Research Modernization and Best Practices Act (as amended), explaining the current version requires entities to use non-animal testing methods when a federal agency has approved an alternative or granted a waiver relieving the entity of animal-test requirements. The sponsor said the bill had been narrowed in committee to exclude drug and vaccine testing and to exempt university research.
"This bill...ensures the use of the best available science," a supporter from the Humane Society testified, arguing Maryland should require industry to use modern non-animal approaches when those alternatives are available. The testimony described Maryland’s 2023 fund for non-animal technology research and framed SB 423 as a logical next step to require use of validated alternatives where agencies approve them.
Experts testifying virtually cited long-standing European rules that require alternatives where practically available and noted new, human-relevant in vitro and in silico methods are emerging from Maryland research centers. Thomas Hartung, director of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, said alternatives have been legally required in Europe since 1986 and pointed to recent AI and in-vitro advances presented at scientific meetings.
Committee members asked detailed questions about the bill’s amendments, including whether a federal waiver must be requested by the test sponsor and how the amended bill interacts with regulatory programs and federal requirements. The sponsor explained the waiver process is typically managed by federal agencies and that the bill would not prohibit animal testing where federal authorities require it or in areas explicitly excluded by the amendment (drugs and vaccines).
A virtual witness opposing the bill framed broader ethical objections and referenced other controversial research topics; that witness did not propose alternative statutory language. Supporters urged that the bill be viewed as a measured step to prioritize human-relevant science in product testing where federal alternatives exist.
The hearing concluded with no formal committee action recorded in the transcript.
Why it matters: the bill attempts to align state-level regulation with a trend toward scientifically validated non-animal test methods; it generated technical questions about regulatory interplay and an active exchange about the limits of state authority when federal standards and approvals are involved.
