Two of the seven U.S. National Primate Research Centers have changed their name to “National Biomedical Research Center.” The center based at the University of Washington announced the change on 13 February; the center based at Tulane University did so in October.
The new names better reflect the variety of research projects underway at the centers, both announcements state. Those projects employ other animal models, computational methods and human-tissue-based approaches in addition to the work using nonhuman primates. The U.S. National Institutes of Health also funds husbandry work at the seven national centers: Researchers at other universities can purchase monkeys bred and raised there.
“The first thing that pops in everybody’s mind is that all we do is work on monkeys, and what we wanted to do was really make sure that our name better reflected the full scope of what we’re doing,” says Deborah Fuller, director of the Washington National Biomedical Research Center and professor of microbiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine.
The Washington center began discussing a name change in July 2025, Fuller says. Part of the motivation, she adds, was an April 2025 announcement from the NIH stating that it intends to reduce the use of animals in the research it funds. And in July, the NIH said it would no longer release funding opportunities “exclusively supporting animal models.”
The Washington center’s grant applications never proposed work exclusively using animal models, Fuller says. “All of our grants have been a broad scope of things that integrate all kinds of tools and capabilities. But we saw, more so than usual, that decisions were being made based on, say, a word,” so removing the word primate might ensure that grant reviewers “have a closer look at what we really do.”
The Tulane center did not grant The Transmitter an interview but said in a written statement that its name change better reflects its scope of research. “The Center is home to one of seven National Primate Research Centers, one of twelve Regional Biocontainment Laboratories, and a federally designated Select Agent Program. The new name also reflects the continued evolution of its science, including the integration of New Approach Methodologies where appropriate and when scientifically validated.”
The Transmitter reached out to the directors of the five other primate centers and asked if they plan to change their name, too. The Wisconsin and Southwest centers say they do not; the Emory center says any name change would require “extensive consideration and an internal approval process” and would be part of the center’s “efforts to convey our broad range of research, research models and scientific advancements that are helping people live longer, healthier lives.” The California and Oregon centers did not respond.
T
In April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shared plans to phase out animal testing. In November, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it intends to end monkey research. In December, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the major subagency heads at the HHS “are all deeply committed to ending animal experimentation” and that he wants to “completely” end importing nonhuman primates for research purposes.
“We want to make sure that if HHS and NIH make decisions about animal research, they do it for sound scientific reasons. And we want them not to be distracted by the potential politics of words that activate certain kinds of people,” says Movshon, who serves as chair of the scientific advisory board for the Washington center. “You can say, ‘Oh, it’s just public relations.’ Public relations matter. This is a time when how we are perceived by the public is important, so let’s take the trouble to get that right.”
Earlier this month, Oregon Health & Science University entered negotiations with the NIH to discuss transitioning the Oregon National Primate Research center, which the university runs, into an animal sanctuary.
The name changes seem “like a desperate attempt to avoid the fate of the Oregon center,” says Christopher Fetsch, assistant professor of neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “I do not think it will succeed, as the anti-animal research faction within HHS and their lobbyist/activist allies continue to grow larger and more emboldened.”
Steve Chang, associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at Yale University, says he does not have strong feelings about the name changes, as long as they were “driven by the will of the researchers at the center rather than by political pressure. However, I am concerned that this may not have been the case. I view this as another example of academic and research institutions being pressured to conform to shifting political agendas.”
Omitting “primate” from the centers’ names could have the unintended consequence of decreasing public awareness of the important role of nonhuman primate research for developing treatments and cures for diseases, Chang adds.
Fuller says she thinks the change will have the opposite effect, because “the word ‘biomedical’ is intended to say the important role that nonhuman primates play in exactly that bridge” from lab to clinic. “I think it’s on us to improve that communication.”
