Kentucky Senate Bill SR164

Kentucky 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/11/25
• Refer: 3/11/25
• Refer: 3/27/25
• Passed: 3/27/25

Caption

A RESOLUTION urging Kentucky’s colleges and universities to end the use of animals in wasteful government experiments.

Impact

This resolution has the potential to impact the legal and operational frameworks of research institutions in Kentucky, particularly regarding how they conduct animal research and testing. The implementation of the resolution may prompt reviews and changes in the practices surrounding animal testing, encouraging institutions to explore alternatives. Additionally, increased transparency and accountability measures on the usage of animals in research may lead to reforms in government spending on animal testing, which could influence funding priorities in the future.

Summary

SR164 is a resolution urging Kentucky's colleges and universities to cease the use of animals in what are described as 'wasteful government experiments.' The resolution highlights concerns over animal suffering in various testing scenarios involving cosmetics, household products, and pharmaceuticals. It makes the case that animal testing is increasingly ineffective, with vast numbers of potential drugs failing during human trials due to unexpected toxicity. The resolution advocates for a shift towards alternative research methods that utilize human biology and may offer more predictive results while being cost-effective.

Sentiment

Overall sentiment related to the resolution appears to be supportive among animal rights advocates and those concerned with ethical treatment. Advocates believe that ending the use of animals in experiments aligns with contemporary ethical standards and scientific advancements. However, there could also be contention from sectors that rely on animal testing for safety and efficacy research, raising questions about the adequacy of alternative testing methods and the implications for scientific breakthroughs.

Contention

Notably, the resolution does not carry any binding legal mandates; rather, it serves as a formal encouragement for institutions to change their practices. Among the points of contention is the balance between regulatory expectations for safety and the ethical considerations surrounding animal welfare. Some may argue that while the intent of the resolution is to promote animal welfare and reduce unnecessary suffering, there will always be a debate regarding the effectiveness of non-animal testing methods. Overall, the resolution highlights the ongoing discussion about ethics and science in the context of state-supported research.