New PAAW Act Bans NIH Funding for High-Pain Research on Dogs and Cats, Effective in 90 Days

The newly proposed Preventing Animal Abuse and Waste Act, or PAAW Act, is straightforward about what it wants to change in federal research: it puts a hard stop on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) conducting or supporting research that causes significant pain or distress to dogs and cats.

The New Rule: No More Categories D or E

This isn't just a vague suggestion; the bill gets specific about what counts as "significant pain." It ties the prohibition directly to the existing pain categories defined by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Animal Welfare Act. Specifically, the NIH is barred from funding any study where a dog or cat is assigned to pain category D or E. For those unfamiliar with the jargon, these categories represent the highest levels of pain and distress allowed in animal research—usually procedures that cause severe, unalleviated pain or distress. This new restriction is set to kick in 90 days after the PAAW Act is signed into law, meaning researchers relying on these specific models will need to pivot quickly.

Who Feels the Change?

For the average person, this bill is a win for animal welfare, aligning federal funding with public sentiment against severe animal suffering. It means that the dogs and cats used in NIH-funded studies—often companion breeds—will no longer be subjected to the most painful procedures. This is a clear benefit for animal welfare advocates and the animals themselves.

However, this change hits certain scientific fields directly. Researchers whose work relies on specific dog or cat models that involve severe, unalleviated pain (categories D and E) will lose their NIH funding stream for those projects. They will be forced to either redesign their studies to fall into lower pain categories or, more likely, develop and validate alternative testing methods that don't rely on live animals—a move that could accelerate non-animal research techniques.

The Regulatory Catch

While the goal is clear, the mechanism introduces a bit of regulatory dependence. The PAAW Act defines its protection by referencing the USDA’s pain categories D and E. If the USDA were ever to change, relax, or redefine those categories in the future—say, by making the definition of 'severe pain' narrower—the protection offered by this NIH ban would automatically shrink, too, without Congress having to pass a new law. So, while the immediate impact is protective, the long-term effectiveness relies on the USDA keeping its pain standards robust.

In short, the PAAW Act draws a clear line in the sand: if it causes significant, unalleviated suffering to a dog or cat, the NIH can't pay for it. It's a significant ethical shift in federally funded research, pushing science toward less painful alternatives, even if it causes a temporary headache for a small subset of the research community.