A new bipartisan bill could end the import of primates for U.S. research, targeting the roughly 20,000 monkeys brought into the country each year for laboratories or their suppliers.
Sponsored by U.S. Reps. Greg Steube, R-Fla., and Dina Titus, D-Nev., the Preventing Risky Importation of Monkeys to Avoid Toxic Exposures (PRIMATE) Act (H.R. 8471) aims to reduce the risk of introducing dangerous pathogens and strengthen U.S. biosecurity, according to an April release from Steube’s office.
The bill would ban the import of nonhuman primates except for limited, clearly defined exceptions, including accredited zoological institutions. U.S. Customs and Border Protection would deny entry to prohibited shipments, with violations resulting in $50,000 fines and the forfeiture of illegally imported primates.
“Americans shouldn’t have to worry about dangerous diseases entering our country through imported primates from countries we don’t trust to handle biosecurity risks,” said Rep. Greg Steube in a statement. “This bill is about protecting public health, strengthening accountability, and ending an outdated trade practice that risks safety at the expense of the American taxpayer.”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) announced its support for what it called “groundbreaking” legislation. The organization said its research found an increase in monkeys imported into the U.S. carrying tuberculosis, shigella, malaria, herpes B, and other dangerous pathogens, and highlighted exposure events at primate facilities in a Michigan laboratory in 2023 and in the federally funded National Primate Research Centers.
“Every year, tens of thousands of monkeys are funneled into the United States through a global supply chain that is inherently unstable, opaque, and a public health risk,” said PETA Chief Science Advisor for Primate Experimentation Lisa Jones-Engel, Ph.D. “PETA applauds Reps. Steube and Titus for recognizing that state-of-the-art research doesn’t need this pipeline, and that it’s time to shut it down.”
The FDA has also been adjusting its guidance to reduce the use of animal testing. In April 2025, the agency announced it was moving away from animal models for investigational new drug (IND) applications for new monoclonal antibodies and some other drug candidates, with the potential to replace such testing with new approach methodologies (NAMs), including computational models, human cell lines, and organoids.
In March, the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) released new draft guidance that drug approval applicants are welcome to submit data from NAMs, with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) pledging $150 million to animal alternatives. But experts warn there is still a long way to go to eliminate animal testing.
Steven Bulera, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for safety assessment at contract research organization Charles River Laboratories, echoed caution in assessing the FDA’s progress. “The transition to NAMs is evolutionary rather than revolutionary,” he told Fierce Biotech in a statement.
Facts Only
U.S. Reps. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) and Dina Titus (D-Nev.) sponsored the PRIMATE Act (H.R. 8471).
The bill proposes banning the import of nonhuman primates for research, with exceptions for accredited zoological institutions.
Approximately 20,000 monkeys are imported annually for U.S. laboratories or suppliers.
Violations would result in $50,000 fines and forfeiture of illegally imported primates.
The bill cites biosecurity risks, including pathogens like tuberculosis, shigella, and herpes B.
PETA supports the legislation, citing exposure events at primate facilities in 2023.
The FDA announced in April 2025 a shift away from animal testing for certain drug applications, favoring new approach methodologies (NAMs).
The FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) released draft guidance welcoming NAMs data for drug approvals.
The NIH pledged $150 million to fund animal testing alternatives.
Steven Bulera of Charles River Laboratories stated the transition to NAMs is "evolutionary rather than revolutionary."
Executive Summary
A bipartisan bill, the Preventing Risky Importation of Monkeys to Avoid Toxic Exposures (PRIMATE) Act (H.R. 8471), has been introduced by U.S. Reps. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) and Dina Titus (D-Nev.) to ban the import of nonhuman primates for research, with limited exceptions for accredited zoological institutions. The legislation aims to mitigate biosecurity risks, citing concerns over pathogens like tuberculosis, shigella, and herpes B carried by imported monkeys. Violations would result in $50,000 fines and confiscation of illegally imported primates. The bill has garnered support from PETA, which highlights recent exposure events at primate facilities and argues that modern research methods can replace animal testing. Concurrently, the FDA is reducing reliance on animal testing for certain drug applications, promoting new approach methodologies (NAMs) like computational models and organoids. However, experts caution that the transition away from animal testing is gradual, with significant challenges remaining in fully replacing traditional models.
The debate reflects broader tensions between public health concerns, scientific progress, and ethical considerations. While the PRIMATE Act emphasizes biosecurity and public safety, critics may argue that it could disrupt critical medical research. The FDA's shift toward NAMs signals a growing acceptance of alternative methods, but the scientific community remains divided on their readiness to fully replace animal testing. The $150 million NIH pledge to animal alternatives underscores institutional support for change, yet the pace and feasibility of this transition remain uncertain.
Full Take
The PRIMATE Act represents a convergence of biosecurity concerns, ethical advocacy, and scientific evolution. At its core, the bill frames primate imports as a public health risk, leveraging recent pathogen exposure incidents to justify restrictive measures. This narrative aligns with PETA’s long-standing opposition to animal research, which now finds bipartisan legislative traction. The FDA’s parallel shift toward NAMs lends credibility to the argument that animal testing is becoming obsolete, though experts like Bulera temper expectations, emphasizing the incremental nature of this transition.
**Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity, ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey**
The bill’s framing oscillates between biosecurity (a broadly acceptable "motte") and the more contentious goal of ending primate research (the "bailey"). The ambiguity lies in whether the primary motivation is pathogen control or ethical opposition to animal testing. The FDA’s guidance, while progressive, avoids outright bans, suggesting a more nuanced institutional stance. The NIH’s funding commitment, while substantial, does not guarantee immediate replacement of animal models, highlighting the gap between policy aspirations and scientific reality.
**Root cause:** The narrative taps into post-pandemic anxieties about zoonotic diseases, using biosecurity as a bridge to ethical and scientific reform. The unstated assumption is that modern research can fully decouple from animal models—a claim the FDA’s cautious language undermines.
**Implications:** If enacted, the bill could accelerate the decline of primate research, but at what cost? Second-order effects may include delays in medical breakthroughs reliant on animal models or shifts in research hubs to countries with looser regulations. The ethical wins for animal rights could come at the expense of scientific flexibility, particularly in fields like infectious disease research where primate models remain critical.
**Bridge questions:**
1. How would the bill’s exceptions for zoological institutions be enforced, and could they become loopholes for research?
2. What evidence exists that NAMs can replicate the complexity of primate immune responses in infectious disease studies?
3. If biosecurity is the primary concern, why not impose stricter quarantine protocols instead of an outright ban?
**Counterstrike scan:** A coordinated campaign would amplify fear of zoonotic outbreaks while downplaying the scientific trade-offs of banning primate imports. The actual content aligns with this pattern but stops short of outright misinformation, relying instead on selective framing of risks and alternatives. The FDA’s measured approach serves as a counterbalance, preventing the narrative from veering into alarmism.
Sentinel — Human
The text exhibits strong human journalistic characteristics, utilizing precise sourcing and a balanced presentation of legislative, public health, and scientific context.