Congress mandates transparency in animal research, shifts federal funding to alternatives
H.R. 1291 — HEARTS Act of 2025 · Filed by Ken Calvert (R-CA) · 18 cosponsors · Introduced Feb 13, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires the National Institutes of Health to prioritize non-animal research methods (like cell cultures, computer models, and AI) in all federally funded research where scientifically feasible, and establishes a new National Center for Alternatives to Animals in Research and Testing to fund, train, and coordinate these methods. It also mandates that research institutions receiving federal funds report publicly on how many animals they use in research, with plans to reduce those numbers over time.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a dual mandate: (1) require NIH to prioritize non-animal methods in research design and review, and (2) establish a new federal center to fund and coordinate alternatives. The operative effect is regulatory tightening on animal use in federally funded research, paired with new public reporting requirements.
What the text implies
- The bill's requirement that research proposals be reviewed by someone with expertise in non-animal methods may slow approval timelines for animal-based research, creating de facto pressure on researchers to adopt alternatives even where animal models remain scientifically preferred.
- Public reporting of animal use by species and institution may enable activist targeting of specific research facilities, potentially affecting recruitment and institutional reputation independent of scientific merit.
- The National Center's funding and training role may create a new constituency (researchers trained in alternatives) with institutional incentive to expand non-animal methods beyond cases where they are scientifically equivalent to animal models.
- The bill does not define 'scientifically satisfactory' non-animal methods, leaving interpretation to the new Center and creating potential for mission creep or inconsistent standards across institutions.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill expands transparency (public reporting of animal use), strengthens oversight of existing legal requirements, and redirects federal research incentives toward methods that are both more humane and—according to the bill's own findings—more predictive of human outcomes (reducing drug failures). Citizens gain visibility into federally funded research and a shift toward methods that may accelerate medical progress while reducing animal suffering.
Who stands to gain
- biotech firms developing organoid, microphysiological, and in silico modeling platforms
- AI and computational biology software vendors
- contract research organizations (CROs) specializing in non-animal testing
- academic institutions receiving grants for alternatives research
Named in the bill
National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Center for Alternatives to Animals in Research and Testing, Public Health Service Act, Animal Welfare Act, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMY), Gilead Sciences (GH), Pfizer (PFE), DaVita (DVA), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)
Where it stands
18 cosponsors: 15 Democrats, 3 Republicans.
- Feb 13, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Feb 13, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $17,500 in lobbying spend. A filing names 4 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.
Ken Calvert, the sponsor, reported $1,368,100 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Cruelty Free International — $10,000 on 1 filing
- Last Chance for Animals — $7,500 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 13, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (9,903 characters) on Aug 21, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 13, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress mandates transparency in animal research, shifts federal funding to alternatives” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr1291 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.