End Animal Experimentation Now: Rise for Animals’ Lindsey Soffes on Ridglan, the Science of Alternatives, and Why Public Opinion Is Shifting

Welcome to Our Hen House, Lindsey. Thank you so much for being here.

Lindsey Soffes: Thank you Jasmin and Mariann for having me. I'm so excited to be here.

Jasmin Singer: We are too. There's so much to talk about.

Mariann Sullivan: And what a moment!

Jasmin Singer: Yeah, no kidding. What a moment. But let me just do a quick reminder before we jump in that the Our Hen House podcasts are now sprinkled throughout your week. You probably know that already. In fact, maybe people don't even remember back in the day when we used to publish one five hour episode each week.

But, uh, Rising Anxieties comes out on Tuesdays, The Hen Report on Thursdays, and the long form interview on Fridays. Bonus for Flock members comes out on Mondays. We're a podcast and we're on YouTube. So hit subscribe, hit like, leave a comment, spread the word, and thank you so much. This is actually, this episode is our monthly Flock Friday episode.

So once a month we invite our flock members to join us live for an interview. Uh, so we have a bunch of people here, many of whom are Lindsey's, uh, fan club as we just learned. And it's very exciting because there is a lot going on in the world of animal experimentation in, in, I, I would say, in very positive ways. So let's get to that interview now.

Lindsey, why don't you start by just telling people a little bit about Rise for Animals and it's, it's it's history and, and we'll, we'll really unpack its approach to animal experimentation over the next, you know, many minutes.

Lindsey Soffes: Absolutely. Thanks Jasmin. Um, you started us off beautifully. So, yes, Rise For Animals is a national animal rights nonprofit organization. We believe that humans should not experiment on animals, period. We're not here to make animal experimentation more humane. We're here to end the practice.

And we are the modern iteration of the New England Anti Vivisection Society, which has a long history of working to free animals from labs and to create a world in which we have ethical human relevant science.

At Rise, our approach really focuses not only on what's happening in labs, but why, and we invest heavily in trying to expose the larger picture. So in trying to understand through public records and synthesizing other publicly available information. Who is engaging in this practice and why? Who are the key players? How are they connected?

We try to follow the money. We think that's hugely important in this industry. Um, and to challenge the laws and policies that underpin all of it. We aim to take a really global approach that looks at the entire system, and so we're interested in the breeders who are supplying animals to labs, the labs themselves, the trade associations that exist to protect those players and to propagandize on their behalf.

And then the federal agencies that many of us think act primarily as regulators or overseers, but that really are financiers and co mingler in many ways, also engaging in these very same practices.

As you mentioned, Jasmin, we also really strive to, and part of our work that we find just really rewarding is working with grassroots advocates and activists and trying to help spread their message and help them do the work that they're doing, and then to help animals who are able to survive labs who can be rescued to get out and live the lives that they deserve.

Um, the last piece I would mention that's really important to us at Rise and to, I know that my colleagues here could speak to it as well, is that even though we work on the issue of animal research on a daily basis, we really focus on grounding our work in a broader animal liberation ethic. So we really reject the idea that animals can be ethically exploited by humans, period. And we would oppose and reject all of that exploitation. And to that end, we are trying to create synergy with other facets of the animal protection movement to say, Hey, maybe if we didn't focus so much on labels, on farmed animals or research animals, but be focused on what we're fighting, we could really unite around unity of cause.

Mariann Sullivan: I, I love that way of putting it. But getting back to the specific issue, which isn't really that specific, animal experimentation, I guess that's the term we're using. I mean, you know, sometimes, I guess vivisection is a very loaded term for the industry, but anyway, whatever you call, it's a really wide landscape. It covers all sorts of different kinds of things that are done to animals, even if you're just in that one area, like invasive research, psychological research, product testing, et cetera, et cetera. Can you just kind of give us an overview of, of these different, uh, aspects of the industry and maybe tell us what you think are the most vulnerable?

Lindsey Soffes: It's a great question, Mariannn, and I think super important, especially with the dialogue that's happening and some of the issues that are being broadcast now on a national scale for us to really dig in and understand.

So you're absolutely right. There are various forms of animal research and at Rise for Animals, we oppose all of it. Um, but we really, the buckets that I think are most helpful for folks to understand are the differences primarily between, for instance, applied research, which is the research that right now is getting a lot of attention on the national scale. So research that is intended to directly apply to humans. So we might be testing a new drug for something, a new medical device or some other intervention, and the idea is that this research will kind of directly lead to human benefit.

A much larger bucket and one that isn't talked about a lot and that is actually funded to a larger degree is basic research or research for knowledge's sake. Sometimes called like blue sky or curiosity driven research. And this is research that is just intended to generate additional knowledge, whatever that is.

I recently heard a prominent animal researcher defend this type of research by saying, We don't know what we don't know.

And so this research is in some ways more insidious in that we aren't having it as part of the national dialogue. There isn't a way for us right now, for instance, to develop a test that doesn't use animals that can replicate what's happening in basic research experiments because they're so often open-ended, they're so often not directed to a particular result. We're not testing toxicity or we're not testing a particular marker. And so we think that this needs to be a really big part of the national conversation, um, and one that sometimes isn't as central.

Mariann Sullivan: What about other areas like, um, product tests? Like, like the, I, I know when I used to teach, I used to have my students do reports on different aspects of, um, animal use, not just in research, but in the whole, the whole big magilla. I did separate animal experimentation or research and animal testing 'cause they seem like really different in their, like, in their goals and methods. Do you cover it all?

Lindsey Soffes: We do. And I think the division that you're bringing up is really important. And I think sometimes those words are used interchangeably, but I think traditionally, like you said, there is a difference where the idea of being, right, research is kind of that basic component. More open-ended, potentially, more kind of looking at a broader landscape. Whereas testing, we often think of toxicology testing, for instance, for drugs, or like you said, cosmetics testing. And yes, we oppose that as well.

Um, and we support legislation that seeks to change that landscape as well. And we seek to work in coalitions that address all aspects because as you mentioned, they are somewhat separated even if we conflate the terminology and they have to be approached separately in terms of different regulatory changes.

Jasmin Singer: Kind of sticking with the same theme as we're laying out the foundation here. Animal experimentation takes place in many different venues: in universities, corporate entities, contract labs, governments. So who are the major players and who is the most vulnerable there?

Lindsey Soffes: Yeah, it's a great question. We are actually working on a project that we will, um, make public shortly that is an industry map where we're really trying to identify who is engaged in this practice. And what we find, Jasmin, is exactly what you're saying, that it is a much broader and larger network than we often think about.

So as you mentioned, the research itself takes place at various institutions that range from public universities to private entities, private industries, um, and there are large ones, small labs and as Mariannn had mentioned, engaging in all different types of research at the same time. So some of them do basic research, some of them are just doing applied, some are doing toxicology or a mix of them.

And what we see when we look is that there really is like a smattering. Some of these are federally funded, some of them are not. Um, and we really see a like kind of a hodgepodge in terms of there's no one industry profile. We think that's important. We also recognize that there is a huge backend to this industry that supports the infrastructure of research without engaging in the research itself.

And that's something that's less often talked about. That could extend to the breeders of animals, who themselves aren't engaging in research or that's only one component of their business. And it also includes a really large number of equipment vendors and other organizations and entities that exist to supply goods used in the undertaking of animal research.

We think connecting all of these pieces is helpful for folks to see how broad it is and to understand that we are not just looking at one profile when we talk about how to kind of attack the vulnerabilities of the industry. We have to start, um, by having a good foundation and understanding.

And Jasmin, in terms of which entities are most vulnerable, we would certainly expect that right now, those that rely heavily on federal funding are so those that are really reliant on government support and government dollars because that is, I think, what is getting a lot of attention right now, not only in political discourse, but in general conversation around how is this perpetuating, what's perpetuating it, and what are our tax dollars doing it? We are really implicitly funding a lot of this if tax dollars are being used in perpetuation of this practice.

Mariann Sullivan: That was a great way of setting the scene, and that exactly brings me to what my next question was gonna be, because there does seem to have been this dramatic shift in attitudes, and I don't use that term very often when it comes to animal rights, but, but about animal experimentation during the second Trump administration.

I mean, something has shifted. I don't know whether it's gonna shift in the real world or whether it's gonna shift, just shift in, uh, in people bloviating about it. But, but can you tell us about some of the recent developments and what has happened and what you hope might happen and what's in play?

Lindsey Soffes: Absolutely. Great question. Um, and I would start by saying that what we're really seeing and what I, we expect would have to have an impact on these elected officials and their appointees would be public perception or public opinion. And this is something where there have been really promising developments in recent years.

So what we know is that opposition to animal research is not coming from this small minority like the industry tells us, these fringe anti-science, emotional folks who you know are not looking at the broader picture. We've always known that that's not where opposition is coming from, but modern research has shown us, right, has given us the data to back that up.

So a 2025 Gallup poll found that less than one in two Americans, only 47% on this poll, felt that animal research was morally acceptable. So they were taking an ethical, or voicing basically, an ethical objection, and that was down from 65%, like two decades ago. So a pretty significant drop.

At the same time, we see polling suggesting that about eight out of 10 or more Americans want to see animal research and animal testing phased out in preference for modern, more ethical methods, and that they expect the government to not only facilitate this phase out, but fund it and prioritize it. The really exciting part of this, of course, in addition to the fact that public opinion is really shifting, is that this seems to be pretty general across demographics.

So there aren't huge changes in opinion based, for instance, on age or geographic location or educational level. And really importantly for where we are today, this moment, is that it extends across the political aisle. So in a 2025 Gallup poll that looked at 19 really hot button issues, animal research was one of the issues that had the closest alignment between Democrats and Republicans.

So signaling that this is an issue where we can come together, right? That there is kind of a visceral response to seeing what's happening to animals and a real willingness to look at this practice and to question it. We think that really sets the stage for government agencies to have to start to address this issue.

And as you mentioned, Mariannn, we're seeing it now in the government in ways we haven't before. Not just discussions about animal research, but questioning the practice and signaling that we need to do this differently. That at least when we talk about applied research, we talk about what's supposed to be in the best interest of humans directly. We need to take a different approach.

And so there's been lots of really positive signaling across the entities, and I would love to talk more about that. We would just think it's also important for folks who are listening for us to frame a little bit around why we think that the conversation needs to be watched pretty closely, and that we have to drill down a little bit on the signals that are being sent by the government.

For those of us who really are working toward a world in which animal research no longer exists. And the example I would give to you is from the NIH. So the NIH is the largest funder of animal research globally and at home, and it funds it to the tune of billions and billions of dollars every year. So when the NIH comes out and says, We would like to shift the landscape here, we would like to step back from animal research that has the potential to be hugely impactful.

And it already has been in terms of changing the conversation. But we would highlight two facets of this that we think garner kind of more attention and that we at Rise are trying to raise public awareness around. One would be the definition of NAMS, or these New Approach Methodologies, that the government signals around a lot.

And for folks who follow this, you'll see references to NAMS quite regularly in the literature. One concern that we have and that is shared by other commentators is that there is no one definition of NAMS that is accepted either in Congress or among the regulatory bodies, or even in kind of the general lexicon.

We, on our front, would think we would really like it to be non-animal methods. The idea being that NAMS do not involve animals either in whole or in part, but that is not the way that NAMS are currently defined. And as new approach methodologies, they often do still involve animals. They may be different animals than the ones we've traditionally exploited, but there are still animals or their parts or cells are still being used.

And that leads to our second concern, which is that these new approach methodologies are largely being positioned as compliments to animal research, not replacements of animal research. And this is something that the NIH has really embodied in a lot of its messaging. One of its primary flagship programs to transition is called Complement-AIRE, and it mirrors very closely industry lingo.

So some of the letters that industry have openly submitted to these agencies, which we've broken down, um, on our website at Rise for Animals. Looks at how they really wanna position that says, Yes, we, we welcome new, new approach methodologies, but these need to work in tandem with animal research maybe before, maybe after, maybe at the same time.

But they don't want anything that's going to shift meaningfully away from animal research. And I've seen a scientist recently describe this framing as complement, um, as really the modern Trojan horse of the animal research industry. If they can succeed in the framing of this as an add-on, we're going to lose a lot of the power that people like that is invigorating, that people feel and hear when they hear NAMs. And so these are the types of issues that we think are really, really important for general discussion today.

Mariann Sullivan: It's really ringing a bell with what's going on with food too. 'Cause that is how, uh, how the industry would love to frame new foods coming on, not as replacing animal foods, but as an alternate, you know, uh, something else you could eat or you could mix them together or whatever.

So it's so similar. They kind of see the writing on the wall and they wanna rewrite what's being written on the wall.

Uh, can you just, I mean, alright. So that's, that's a big project to redefine that. But there have been some good things happening and I, you know, I try to keep track of things, but the word salad in the, um, in, or the initial salad in the, in the federal government and all the different initiatives, I lose track.

But I have, I'm pretty sure I have heard of some actual shifts at at, at NIH and and I think the FDA and EPA. Can you just summarize a little bit of something good that, that has happened so far, at least something that looks like it's gonna be good?

Lindsey Soffes: Absolutely. And we would say that what's happening at the NIH has tremendous promise. We're in no way suggesting otherwise. We just want to be, we just wanna guard against the industry co-opting this, and we wanna guard against the industry kind of directing this because we think that it has done that for a long time and that it's hoping to do that in this case.

And we don't wanna lose momentum, um, by, by assuming that this is like taking it at face value, right? When we just wanna dig a little deeper. So what's happening at the NIH is really promising. They are investing, right, in new approach methodologies, some of which absolutely do not involve animals and would help to reduce the number of animals being utilized.

Um, as we mentioned, they are also heavily involved in setting the stage in terms of what's credible, what's gonna be funded. They're the largest funder. So if they're saying we would like to shift to a model in which animal research is not necessarily the complete default, it's not the only way to do it, that's gonna have ripple effects that are going to right across the entire industry. Hugely promising.

At other agencies, you're right, Mariannn, there's also been significant developments. So at the FDA, they are also vocalizing a will to shift away from animal research. And I think one of the most exciting parts have been actually some of the comments made by the head of the FDA or Dr. Marty Makary, who has actually injected some ethics into this conversation by saying not only that the science supports moving away from using animals, and that it is his intention to do that, starting with monoclonal antibodies and then extending to other testing methodologies.

But he has also said that in his opinion, I think the quote was, you know, "God didn't put animals here for us to abuse and torture." And so in injecting ethics, right into this dialogue. We don't usually hear that. We hear a lot around the science, which is super important, but to say this might just not be the right thing to do, um, period, I think is, is huge, um, for that to be vocalized at that level.

And so yes, the FDA as well is starting to shift. And just earlier, um, I guess it's May now, um, just in April they started to roll out some other guidance around how we might be able to qualify and validate some non-animal methods to try to get regulations around that, which we've been fighting really hard to get for a long time.

Hugely promising. Um, we also have a promise, or I guess a pledge from the Environmental Protection Agency that said that we wanna phase out testing on mammals by 2035. Um, we are hoping that this pledge will like, really like stick in this time because this is the second time the EPA has signaled this.

Um, but between the change in administrations from Trump's first term to President Biden's term, this kind of, this was unrolled. So we're hoping that that can move forward. And even though that is not a full ban on using animals and concern exists that they would use non mammalian species, signaling that we wanna change how we're doing things and that we're looking to reduce or question our practices we also think is is a big step in opening dialogue.

Jasmin Singer: I wanna talk about why these shifts are happening. What are your thoughts on, you know, where, where these shifts are coming from? Has the administration actually keyed into something that's been going on for a while? Has opposition in the general public been rising for a while? Who's leading here and who's following?

Lindsey Soffes: I think it's a great question and Jasmin, I wish I had the inside track on all of this. It would be fantastic. Um, but I, I would have to imagine that again, because we are talking about federal agencies that are utilizing taxpayer dollars, that there has to be some interest at some point in considering the public perception here.

So I think a big piece of this is the shift in public opinion that we're seeing across polls, which is to say across the aisle. So we're not just talking about one party, we're talking about people on both sides who are calling for change and questioning.

I think the other piece is that science potentially in many ways is becoming less of like a sacred cow, right? In terms of Dr. Ray Greek, who I know you've had on, um, that's something we can start to question around how we are doing science and what the translational value is.

Um, in a world where we are really inundated with concerns and there's ever-growing concerns about wellbeing and health across a broad spectrum and where we recognize that the United States is spending more money on this research than most other nations, if not all of them, and are seeing less benefit to their population, or that's not translating into a healthier, happier population. I think the timing might be gelling to a place where we are finally able to ask questions of practices that were previously considered to be too outside of the realm of what the everyday person can question to really allow for that conversation.

In terms of this administration itself, I think part of it is there is a general lack of reverence here, and that in this particular realm that may be working to our advantage. The willingness to kind of go outside and say something that has not been said, um, which often can cause unintended or negative consequences, but in this space, I think is really powerful in that it is unlocking a conversation that's been simmering and that folks like us and others have been having for many, many years, but that has never made it to the national stage in this way because the electeds and their appointees have not wanted to engage.

Mariann Sullivan: I love that framing, lack of reverence. Nicely done.

Jasmin Singer: As Mariannn would say, strange bedfellows for sure.

Mariann Sullivan: I think a lot of people would say that.

I actually wanna talk about Ridglan 'cause I know everybody wants to talk about Ridglan at the moment, but I just for, for this kind of introductory section, setting the scene. You kind of covered this, but I just wanna make sure that we're really pinning it down. 'Cause it's gotta be that one of the reasons that there's this progress in attitudes is going on, aside from lack of reference, is the science of the alternatives.

And can, can you just give us an overview of who's working on and how much progress has been made in actually doing science better than, than doing it on animals? Because a lot has changed right?

Lindsey Soffes: It has, and I think a huge part of this conversation right now is how to ensure that more of that can happen because the preliminary results or the results from folks who have been doing this early on and who have set the stage are so promising.

So as we always hear in the one statistic, I think that gets a lot of attention now because it's fundamental, is this idea that when we're talking about the testing of drugs or medical devices, those that pass preclinical animal tests have like a 96 or above percentage failure rate once we use humans, right? Once we put them into human systems, we are finding that they are either not safe or not effective.

And I think this realization has been in existence for a long period of time. And in fact, if you listen to animal researchers talk to each other, I attended a webinar just the other week, um, that was geared to animal researchers. They acknowledge issues in translation and replicability. They don't address them in terms of, We should do something differently. They address them in terms of, We know this is a problem that exists and we're gonna have to figure out kind of maybe how to message around this, or how to modify animals differently.

But I think that the realization around this has existed for some time and we've seen some really amazing work from groups such as, you know, CAT, right? The Center for Alternatives, right, in animal testing. We see amazing work coming out of other areas of scholarship as well. So not just the actual labs, but those data scientists who go back and crunch all of the numbers to figure out how relevant the science is.

So for instance, in a study that came out in the early two thousands, they found that of highly promising basic research protocols, less than 0.004% actually translated into any kind of clinical benefit to a human within 30 years. And so once you start not only doing the work in a lab, and you can see for instance, that when we use in vitro methods or human relevant methods, they are outperforming animals in areas where there are these massive failure rates.

So in toxicity or in, um, efficacy studies where we can see that the translation between these newer technologies and non-animal technologies far outstrip what we could do with animals. But when you also have folks on the other side doing the data, crunching the numbers, and they're able to say, really, we don't have proof points for what the industry is saying.

They just continue to iterate that animal research is necessary and foundational. We can't bear it out. I think the combination of that moves us forward. I think one of the biggest problems in really setting fire to this change has been funding.

The NIH for instance, as the largest funder, has really only apportioned a very tiny amount of its large budget to non-animal methodologies or new approach methodologies. That seems to be changing now a little bit as they're earmarking more money for it. Um, but we think again that we need to move money from animal research to these other methods to build up programs like those that are happening across the country to try to really displace and replace animals from this entire pipeline.

Jasmin Singer: Mariannn is, is correct that we wanna talk about Ridglan and you know, clearly this is a massive story right now and I cannot imagine that there is anyone listening to this who doesn't know what it is. But just because the podcast lives on and it's possible someone in the future will be listening to this, uh, and hello future person.

Uh, can you just give a very brief, uh, a very brief kind of, uh, 1 0 1 for what we're about to discuss with Ridglan? 'Cause I wanna, I wanna talk to you about how this story has broken through.

Lindsey Soffes: Absolutely, yes. So Ridglan Farms is a federally licensed and registered dog breeding facility and research facility in the state of Wisconsin that also holds a state license to breed dogs for research purposes, to breed dogs in generally, but with this intent for research.

Um, Ridglan Farms has been the subject of advocacy, um, for over a decade. So grassroots efforts have been targeted at trying to show what happens inside Ridglan and to stop Ridglan from harming dogs and continuing to both breed and, and research on these animals. And really recently, after years of effort from these advocates, it has finally really made national news.

And it's made national news, I know you guys have done amazing coverage of this, and I've listened to your conversations about this, um, but thanks to not only the work of advocates who have tried to, um, go after Ridglan on regulatory bases and ensure that they are criminally responsible for evidence of cruelty that is illegal, that they engaged in illegal conduct, but that have also really sought to address the concerns head on.

And recently there were two open rescues. Where folks went on site to Ridglan and said, we wanna remove the dogs. We think what's happening here is illegal. We object to it, and we're done with it. We're done waiting for the authorities to take action. And now this week we learned that, um, 1500 of these dogs will be rescued, um, thanks to the work of a rescue coalition that was able to strike a deal with Ridglan.

Um, and it is certainly, um, it is certainly, I think, general consensus that it took this entire symphony of actors to generate this kind of result. That the work of these grassroots advocates, the work of the open rescuers, then facilitated a landscape in which this rescue was possible. And we are still waiting to see if this is really the end for Ridglan, but for right now, we know that most of the dogs who are trapped inside are going to get out.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, and I should mention too, that by the time this goes up, which will be a week after it's recorded, things could have shifted a little bit. So it's not that Lindsey got anything wrong, it's just that maybe, hopefully it's a good thing and it hasn't happened yet. But already many good things have happened and it's just... kind of taking a step back is the big picture.

I've just never seen a story on animals breakthrough at this level. And obviously one of the reasons is because it's about dogs. I mean, that's a given. We know it's because it's about dogs, but, but how do we ensure that the dogs are, are the gateway species that leads people to look at other animals and, and, and not a dead end.

I assume this is an issue a lot in, in the work you do because experimentation is done on animals who are very sympathetic and on some who people, you know, really don't tend to care about a lot. How do you connect those dots?

Lindsey Soffes: It's a great question, Mariann, and I think that, I think folks in our movement, um, are of two minds. I think some folks do think that dogs can be a gateway species that we can first kind of curry favor for them and extend it. And I think there's concern on the other side that we won't be able to extend because dogs are uniquely positioned, right?

We, we have different relationships with them. So I think what you're saying is, is truly important. I think that what is really critical for folks to understand, and I'll return to the species piece in a moment, but a lot of what we're seeing here is really concern over a lot of the practices as well, that Ridglan has undertaken.

Not, I think just the animals, but what they're doing to the animals. And I would posture that if you replaced dogs with another species, in this particular case, once we already had attention on it, and you said they're cutting out their eye glands without anesthesia, they're, you know, they're living in these conditions. I think folks would generally be taken aback by some of that. And our hope is that Ridglan can be a vehicle to get people to look at the realities of the animal research industry. And it is then the job of organizations like Rise for Animals and the advocates, like you said, to connect this to other species, which is the next step, which is to say, we don't want this to happen to dogs, but we shouldn't want it to happen to other animals.

I think the magic sauce for how we do that is like an open question in, in this sphere, and I think in other animal advocacy spheres. The same way we see it with farmed animals where we're having a hard time, even when folks who take the animals outside of the industrial oppression recognize that they are sentient, they are intelligent, they have feelings and personalities, once you frame them within that industrial context, right, people then tend to not assign the same mental faculties to them, not connect with them in the same way.

And that research exists both in the farmed animal space and in the research animal space, where we see that once we say they're going to be used for this. So in that way, something that Ridglan is doing really effectively is to break down the lie that dogs who are in labs are different from dogs in your home.

That's a lie that we've been told for many decades around lots of animals, but dogs specifically. And I think if we can break down that divide and we can say, okay, that's a lie. The dogs in the laboratory are the very same as the dogs living in your home. They just had a different fate. Unfortunately, I think we can start to try to break down the other myths that separate animals so that separate dogs from others and if we can show that like the, how similar they are in all the ways that matter, I think that will be critical.

But I agree with you. Part of our challenge now will be to not only celebrate what's happening at Ridglan, but to not stop there. It will be to roll this into momentum that positions Ridglan as an example of the animal research industry and exhibits these dogs as examples of the victims, but also positions them in the landscape of the sea of victims, all of whom are suffering in very much the same way.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I have actually seen some people, um, uh, talking about it, calling this factory farm for dogs, which I think is really good framing because I know when I used to teach, uh, I would ask, I would assign a paper that had to do with, you know, fixing the future. What would you do in the future? And most of my students were not vegan and they would frequently eliminate animal research completely.

I said like, if you're the empress or the emperor, what would you do? And then they would somehow keep farming. Like it was, it was so crazy to me. I mean, animal research, at least arguably is saving lives, you know, like and, and they didn't care. They would just get rid of it. So there's this huge challenge I think that maybe and and characterizing what's happening to those Ridglan dogs as factory farming, I think is, is one way to maybe connect.

'Cause it's not just the species either, it's, it's the fact that their food animals makes them less sympathetic. And I think it's brilliant what they have done to try to change the idea that the use that they were being put to as lab animals doesn't make them different from your pets.

That's the key thing. And, and if we can do that with all of them. But yeah, I guess, I guess you started off by saying some people think, you know, they're a gateway species. Some people think it's a dead end, it's gonna end with dogs. I think it's up to us to see what we can do to make it the first and not the latter.

Lindsey Soffes: I think you're absolutely right. And I think what you said as well about people separating research from, from farming is also extremely poignant. Um, there were just survey results released, uh, in January of this year that showed that when you asked folks about their general concern for different classes of exploited animals, so research animals, farmed animals, wildlife, animals used for rodeos and zoos, they showed the greatest concern for animals used for research, um, over significantly larger than, as you said, farmed animals or others.

Um, and we would posit as you, that research animals are farmed animals and truly farmed animals are also often research animals. And that's what I was alluding to somewhat at the beginning. We're trying to kind of break down that, that divide, because I think that you're absolutely right. Not only do the considerations apply equally to them, um, and they're right to not have this happen and there need to be liberated is the same, but they also are really being victimized by the same industry in very much the same way, just sometimes to a different end.

And I think you're right. If maybe we can get people to see that, then we can pool some of the power that right now is fragmented into saying, we just gotta fight this fundamental ideology and these fundamental practices that underpin all of it.

Jasmin Singer: I feel like Ridglan also reveals that the industry is, is really out of step with public opinion here. They seem to have thought that the general public wouldn't care and that legislators would be on their side. Are you at all surprised by how wrong they were?

Lindsey Soffes: I think that's such a great question, Jasmin, and I think too, I think they did expect to get a lot more protection and I think they were getting quite a bit of protection before there was this huge spotlight on them.

But from our perspective, when we look at the larger industry, I'm really not surprised by that because I think the industry does a tremendous amount to protect its own. It does a tremendous amount, both financially and politically to insulate its actors from meaningful accountability. And in many spheres, like in the research sphere, there really isn't any, right. They're still engaging in research, nothing at the state level and the breeding side could touch that. Um, and so I think you're right. I think they mistook this and thought we are going to be able to skate on this other aspect of our operations as well. And I'm really happy to see that they didn't. Um, but part of our work in working with some of these folks in grassroots efforts, um, to get to this result for Ridglan, and hopefully to take it further and really stop all harm of animals, has been to position Ridglan in the larger industry.

And that is to realize that the reason they've continued to be able to operate despite everything that we have, the broad us, like the collective movement and these on the ground advocates have demonstrated about them is because there has still been demand for what they do. Because the industry is still buying from them.

The industry is still paying them to perform research. And so this is a really, I think, important case study for us as advocates to realize that we need to shine light on these issues and then we need to bring the momentum forward because it is a really tangled web and we need to knock out more than one domino, right, to ensure that they're just... we need to cut off the demand. We need to make this something that is no longer financially incentivized. Um, and we have to do that through policy and law.

Mariann Sullivan: So there's always this tension in, in, especially for, for people like me who don't have any kind of science background, um, or any expertise, it's unbelievable the things you have to learn about when you start caring about animals.

It's like a very wide array of knowledge. But science is particularly difficult and I think there's just always this tension. We point out that this is bad science and there's plenty of evidence that that's the case and you're very familiar with it. And then they come back with their arguments that it is good science and, and that everybody ends up arguing about science and they have more expertise or credentials than we do.

I mean, maybe not more than you, but certainly more than me. And, and then the argument that it's not good science takes a different tack from this more fundamental argument that it's morally wrong regardless. It almost distracts us from that argument. Um, if if you see what I mean? Like we're just saying it's wrong.

Like it doesn't matter whether it's bad science. And then we get into an argument about whether it's bad science. So, so what are your messaging suggestions for the non-scientists? The people aren't that familiar with the issue, but would like to have a conversation or get dragged into a conversation when people find out you're an animal advocate.

Lindsey Soffes: Absolutely. And I absolutely understand what you're saying, Mariannn, and I think it's a really important point. So you're right, like Rise for Animals, we would oppose animal research even if it was translating for humans because we, we feel that it's unethical, but we are fortunate, or our cause is fortunate in the sense that the science just doesn't back it up.

And again, that does come from folks in that particular realm. But I think what's important for people to understand before we get bogged down in an argument over science, because you're right, we're not, as advocates and non-scientists, we're not gonna win that one, right? They're going to be able to say, you don't have expertise in this area.

I think we have to pull back the veil a little further and we have to ask for proof of their claims. I think that needs to be number one. And I think a really good example of that is the statement that in one form or another, the industry always promotes, which is to say every single modern advancement in medicine, um, has relied on or depended on animals.

Okay? We've needed them for all of it. And the suggestion there is that like we couldn't have done it or that that somehow makes it right. What we find when we peel that back, and this actually came out in a really interesting paper by a physicist named Robert AJ Matthews, and he was like, what's the origin of this statement?

And when you go back, you find that it was a sentence in a one pager that was released by the US Public Health Service in 1994 without any citations. They just said every modern breakthrough has relied on animals, and it has been cited there on hundreds, if not thousands of times for the proposition that animals were absolutely necessary for these advancements. And that is not the case. The the, that can't be quantified or validated in any way. And I think we need to start to question the idea that because they have been used, which they have been because the law has mandated it, the question of if they have been used versus were they necessary to be used?

Could we not have arrived where we are without them, and what could we have achieved if we hadn't utilized them? There are also not great answers for that, but we are going to find them as we continue to develop non-animal methods like we talked about. As we continue to develop organoids and these other micro physiological systems that show us, oh my God, they're like way more predictive for us.

They're allowing us to answer questions more quickly. And so I think the first part of the message is to start fundamentally, which is to say, if you are going to come at me with science, and as we said, it's going to be technical and it's going to sound really impressive. Um, let's just boil it down though, and let's see some data. Like where do these claims come from and can you give me more than isolated cases of success?

Because we often get accused on our end of not being able to focus on like, we're just pulling, like things that happened that went badly. But they do the very same thing. They just wanna focus on isolated incidents in when animals were predictive for their cause. The last thing I would say, which I think is really powerful, and as a non-scientist, has shaped some of how I think about this, came from Dr. Pandora Pound, who wrote The Rat Trap, uh, just recently. And she was a lifelong scientist and she made the suggestion that those of us opposing animal research are often and almost always on stronger scientific ground than the animal researchers, even if we're not science-based or scientists.

And her claim around this was to say that when we look at why animals do not translate, or animal research doesn't translate to humans, they shouldn't and can't stand in for us, it's based on principles of evolution, one of the most accepted and unifying theories that exists. And it gives us a way to connect all of the failures that we point to. Like it doesn't work in all of these cases. Why doesn't it work? It doesn't work because all species are unique.

It doesn't work because there isn't a hierarchy of animals. There aren't higher order and lower order animals. We're all equally like unique in that sense. What animal researchers point to is not that, an evolutionary theory, it's just the idea that we have a common ancestor. Right? But they reject implicitly the idea that we're all unique and they institute a hierarchy of value, um, or complexity that doesn't exist. And so her argument was we actually have a unifying theory to explain their failures. They do not have a unifying theory to explain their successes, and then that in itself renders what they're saying scientifically vulnerable to an unbelievable degree.

Mariann Sullivan: That is so interesting. I don't think I could pull off that argument myself, but, uh, it's a really good one. And it's not, I mean, it's sciencey, but it's not that sciencey. That, that. That, that's a very compelling argument. What, what I usually say in these situations is that if we had decided hundreds of years ago, as we should have, that it was wrong to do this to our fellow creatures.

And, um, and, and a lot of people did. I mean, it certainly vivisection, the anti vivisection movement was really the start of the modern animal rights movement. But anyway, if we decided that, we wouldn't have then had no science or medicine, I mean, we wouldn't have just said, oh, well, we'll all just die of everything.

I mean, we would've done something else. And, uh, I, I, I guess some people would say that this was a necessary step in building knowledge, but, but regardless of whether it was either we can give it up- it was necessary, we can give it up, or it was never necessary at all, we would have a different kind of medicine, which definitely could be better.

Jasmin Singer: Yeah. You also just made me think about the early anti vivisectionists, and if anyone listening or watching this does not know what I'm referring to, just Google early anti vivisectionists, because what you will see is like a group of badass women

Mariann Sullivan: Badass.

Terrifying.

I wouldn't have wanted them coming after me, I'll tell you.

Jasmin Singer: Yeah. Uh. Wow, there's so much here. And so my, my wife works in human research protection and, uh, many in her field work in animal research. She does not. That was, uh, you know, that was something that was a, obviously a no-go for her, a vegan of 30 something years. Uh, but it is common for people to ask her peers, uh, you know, this is a question I struggle asking, but I know that people do ask her peers, are there any areas in which animal research is producing or might produce, quote unquote, good research that could not be produced by any other means? So how would you respond to that?

Lindsey Soffes: I think that's a great question, and I think, again, it's the framing.

We, we don't know. Potentially. Maybe there are some insights specific to that species, which you could not gather in any other way. But I think the suggestion that we need to use other species to gain insight into humans or into another living being. This to me seems like a very challenging proposition to make, um, in the sense that we are all different and we are all unique.

I think that it's impossible for us to suggest that no knowledge has been gained from animals or that nothing that has been learned from animal research translated into a human benefit. And that's not our assertion either. I think what we are saying as we've, as we've discussed, right, is one, it's unethical, full stop, but two, as Mariannn was saying, because we've done it this way, doesn't mean we need to continue doing it this way.

And one of the large opportunity costs of continuing to focus on a practice that we know has failed so significantly, both ethically and scientifically, is what are we missing out on that we're not doing? As we continue to fund animal research, we are not funding other human relevant initiatives. We are not funding other more creative ways to bring science into the 21st century.

And so I think it's less a question about could we. Could we never achieve what we've done with animal research without it? And more, what are we not achieving because we're using animal research, and why do we think that the best we can do is to torture and kill other living things supposedly in the name of creating prosperity in life?

This, to me, just is a non-starter.

Jasmin Singer: Well, and of course, historically prisoners have been subjected to unethical medical experiments against their will or without informed consent, including right here in the US during the mid 20th century, which wasn't that long ago. So maybe there's some information coming out of it, but it doesn't make it ethical. And as a species, we have to be trying to be ethical at least. I mean, I guess that's like the crux of everything we're talking about here. I digress.

Mariann Sullivan: As the guy from the NIH...I forget who it was, NIH said, God doesn't want us to do this.

Lindsey Soffes: Yeah. The FDA. Yep. Dr. Marty Makary.

Mariann Sullivan: Why can't religions say that?

Like,

Lindsey Soffes: I know,

Mariann Sullivan: That's so crazy. That's such a crazy line. I'm, I'm I'm surprised I didn't know about that. Alright. We don't have that much time and I, we, there's stuff we have to get into because I wanna talk about transparency and I wanna talk about ARLO and, um, how difficult it is to get information, what ARLO is, and how it can help activists get the information they need.

Lindsey Soffes: Thank you. Yes. So we really think, I mean, secrecy is really central, I think, to the animal research industry. And it goes in the same vein as, like we said, the more people know, the more they oppose it. And it always reminds me of that really famous quote, you know, If slaughterhouse had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian.

And of course I would sub vegan for that. But be it as it may, um, we think the same thing is true of animal labs. If there were glass walls and you could see what's happening inside, there would be vast and, and like visceral opposition. And the industry knows this.

Um, as you know, Jasmin was alluding to, you know, historically vivisection took place much more openly, right? It would be like almost a form of entertainment in some spheres. It would happen in, in common, like common squares or in really large auditoriums at universities. And what this engendered was like abhorrence from folks, not only those who are the intended audience, but from those who learned of this practice and it mounted this movement against it.

And I think what that taught researchers was we need to pull back and we only wanna share what we think is gonna play well and we're gonna be really careful and gate keep over who can see what we're doing? And that exists today. So today this practice is taking place behind walls, right, in locked laboratories where they're not allowing any outsiders in.

It's behind scientific jargon, like you said, Mariannn. It's really hard for those of us who don't have a science background to like parse through what's happening and to even find the animals sometimes in the research, they're reduced to numbers or models or you know, other things. And then they also are hiding behind legal loopholes. So even in a country where like the US where we're really lucky to have federal and state public records laws, there's ways for them to get around it, right? For them to kind of be obstinate and make it really difficult for us to access information.

And indeed, the NIH has actually on webinars advised researchers to really put the minimal amount in these records, right? Don't put anything extraneous, don't give them any additional information. And so we're left with a really non-transparent industry. And we know that the anecdote for that is to like create transparency.

And so part of what the way we've tried to do that is by creating something called ARLO, which is the Animal Research Laboratory Overview. And Rise for Animals put this together in 2020. It is like a first of its kind transparency tool and public database that profiles not only animal labs, but others within the space, including animal breeders.

So Ridglan would have a dual profile, for instance, and it houses o over 40,000 records. Um, these are records not only that are available through, um, public inspection, so for the government, like inspection reports by the USDA, but it also includes lots of records that the industry really doesn't want us to see and we had to request specifically, so photographs, internal correspondence between folks at these institutions and federal regulators. And we updated all the time. So we're constantly adding more information. And what this allows folks to do, I think, is to get an understanding of what's happening broadly in the industry, and also to drill down on what's happening locally.

Like if you're interested in particular lab or particular species, it gives you a place to start to look. And I think as someone who puts a lot of these records, reviews them and enters them, I think one of the most powerful pieces is that it pushes back on the narrative from the industry that these grotesque instances that we actually see get media attention are one-offs.

They're isolated incidents, things just went badly. When you see a collection of thousands of records and you see the records written by the institutions themselves, by the government regulators, in their own words, you start to realize that this industry is just premised on violence. It is just premised on suffering.

This isn't isolated. This isn't an aberration. This is what it is in their own words. And I think that that is a really powerful message for people to get. And we hope that ARLO will be empowering to folks because our opinion that if secrecy is the industry's greatest weapon, then exposing the truth has to be one of our greatest strengths.

Jasmin Singer: Mm-hmm.

Mariann Sullivan: That's, uh, that's really well said. It sounds like an incredibly useful tool and I, I mean, I really appreciate what you said about how the industry is just predicated on violence. I do think that Ridglan, there was something about their willingness to use really unbelievable violence against the protesters that really brought that home.

I think that was one of the most telling, telling features of the whole episode so far. Uh, and I think finding out what's happening locally. It could be very motivating for people. I know one thing that's happening locally for us that Jasmin and I live probably less than an hour away from Marshall Bio Resources in upstate New York, which is I know one of your next targets.

So maybe we could talk about that on the bonus segment a little bit. Before we go on, on the main interview, I just wanna ask you about, um, legislation. You have a list of federal bills on your, um, website. I advise people to go look at them. What are the ones you're, you're focused on particularly?

Lindsey Soffes: Yes. So if we could plug just a couple, we would plug two. One is the FDA Modernization Act 3.0. Um, this bill passed the Senate unanimously at the end of 2025 and there was a lot of hope that it would like pass completely early in the year. And it has stalled, which is somewhat concerning and I think really kind of disparate in terms of it doesn't align with what we're seeing happening across agencies.

So, by way of background, in 2022, the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 passed and it directed the FDA to do away with the requirement that you needed data from animal research before you can, uh, approve a drug or a therapy or medical device. So we need to get rid of legal requirement. And this was huge because that is really the requirement that has fueled so much animal use and prevented industry from investing, I think in other methods of, of doing it.

Because if we have to get animal data, we're going to have to, we're gonna focus on this particular venue. Um, so that passed, and unfortunately the FDA did not amend its regulations to like bear that legal change. So the law said you don't need this, but internally, the FDA still had regulations that focused on an and largely required animal research.

So they were then also not responsive to inquiries from Congress in terms of are you going to amend your regulations? And so as a result of that, Congress said, Okay, we're gonna have to come with another bill that directs you to align your regulations with the change in law that was made in 2022. That's what this bill seeks to do. And we think that's just fundamentally so important.

Right now, the FDA seems to be doing that. They seem to be amending their regulations, so we would expect that they should support this bill, which basically should be telling them to do what they're claiming they wanna do anyway. And we think that will go a long way in terms of incentivizing industry to invest in these other approaches because there is a really good chance then that they can get a drug or therapy through without using animals. And so it's in their financial best interest at that point to invest. So that would be the first bill.

The second bill, Mariannn, would be the SPARE Act and this is a bill that has been pending, um, since 2025. And it's really broad. It's somewhat aspirational, and that's what makes it fantastic. Um, it would cut off federal, basically federal funding for animal research. And so it would prohibit across classes as we talked about the beginning. So it would look to cut federal funding for biomedical cosmetic toxicity, psychological testing kind of across the board. Um, and so it would do a lot because the federal government is the number one funder. This would be a tremendous blow to the industry.

Um, it would also mandate phase outs for experiments and then help to try to protect the animals in, to get them out to sanctuary. So those are our two bills that we think could really change the landscape across the board and that we're really hoping get traction and, and make it further.

Mariann Sullivan: It's hard to imagine the federal government doing anything useful, but I guess it's not impossible to.

Lindsey Soffes: We have to hope.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. We have to uh, what else do we have left?

Jasmin Singer: Yeah, exactly. Uh, Lindsey, as we, as we wrap up, I would love it if you could just first of all reiterate the website, uh, so that our listeners and viewers can get involved. And if you don't mind, what kind of legislative proposals might be available at the local or state level for people to act on?

Lindsey Soffes: Thank you Jasmin. Absolutely. Um, I'll start with our website just so I don't forget. It's just riseforanimals.org and our database is accessible or ARLO is accessible through our website or at ARLO.riseforanimals.org.

Um, I think that's a great point and I think local legislation is something that has has not been utilized potentially to its full extent and has its challenges, but that we have seen at least at like the local level so like ordinances, there have been some jurisdictions in Wisconsin, interestingly enough, given our focus on Ridglan that have prohibited animal research or the breeding of animals for research within a village or a township.

Um, and there's some question of whether or not there could be an extension of that. Um, and I think that somewhat depends not only on larger principles in terms of the authority that these governments have, but I think it, it is something to be considered at a local level for folks who are really interested in trying to make change and just as importantly, start the conversation.

If you were to say, let's look at what we could ban in our, in our jurisdiction, even if that's not successful, you have created a, a, a dialogue among folks. You have educated them about what's happening and you have utilized available tools to try to push that forward to change. To change the landscape. And so I think that there are, and I would be happy to share for folks who are interested, we can post this at Rise, examples of local ordinances that have passed, and some other efforts that folks are working on to try to make change on a local level while we wait for the feds.

Jasmin Singer: Amazing. Lindsey Soffes, you are iconic to me too right now. Like I'm so in awe of the work you're doing and you are just such a bright, bright light and what you know, has been such a, a, a dark landscape for so long, and the work that you're doing and that your colleagues are doing is so vital to that brightness.

So thank you for all that you're doing to change the world for animals and for joining us today on Our Hen House. I know you're gonna stick around for our bonus content, but uh, yeah, thank you again so much for spending some time with us today.

Lindsey Soffes: Thank you both for having us. Thank you for all the work you do, and I am so excited to be part of this conversation. And yes, let's change the world for animals.

Jasmin Singer: Thank you to our flock and our listeners and our viewers for tuning in. Don't forget to hit subscribe and like, and comment on your favorite pod catcher and on YouTube. And that's it for us. If you're in the flock, make sure you tune in to the bonus content coming this Monday.