Allegations of serious misconduct have led to the suspension of several research projects at Purdue University, sparking concerns about the integrity of animal research conducted at the institution. Internal complaints, filed in late 2025, detailed incidents involving failure to maintain proper laboratory conditions, the use of unapproved substances on animals, and the falsification of research documents.
According to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the animal rights organization Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN), the complaints were directed to both Purdue’s internal research office and the National Institute of Health (NIH). Michael Budkie, Executive Director of SAEN, emphasized the gravity of the situation. “They were not following protocol… and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee requires that the protocol is followed to the letter,” Budkie stated. He added that the potential for these projects to yield valuable scientific information has been severely compromised.
In October 2025, the research study titled “Examination of behavioral and neural outcomes associated with drugs of abuse and neurodegenerative diseases” was initially suspended due to violations concerning personal protective equipment (PPE) usage and aseptic practices. Trevor Peters, a spokesperson for Purdue, confirmed the suspension but asserted that all procedures adhered to approved guidelines. “The matter was resolved promptly, and the protocol was reinstated without further concerns,” Peters said in an email.
Despite the reinstatement, further issues arose when another project, “High-throughput deep tissue in vivo imaging,” was permanently suspended in December 2025 following a unanimous vote by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. This suspension stemmed from serious violations, including improperly housing laboratory mice, neglecting to euthanize a mouse with a non-healing wound, and using unauthorized over-the-counter medications without veterinary consultation.
The lab member responsible for the violations reportedly attempted to treat the wounded mouse themselves, applying surgical glue to the injury without veterinary oversight. This action, as detailed in the documents, “likely caused significant pain” to the animal. The accompanying letter to the NIH highlighted concerns that health logs for the animals appeared to have been falsified, raising serious questions about the integrity of the data collected.
Budkie noted that SAEN receives approximately 1,000 lab complaints annually, with 50 to 100 deemed significant enough for suspension. Notably, fewer than 10 cases each year involve falsified documents. The letter to the NIH warned that if Purdue failed to address these issues, the university’s accreditation status with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care could be jeopardized.
As a result of the ongoing investigations, Purdue’s Ethics Policy III.A.2 is now looking into allegations of research misconduct related to the falsification of documents. Budkie emphasized the potential consequences for those involved, stating, “The Federal Office of Research Integrity (at NIH), if they find someone guilty of research misconduct, can bar them from participating in federally funded research.”
Research institutions often rely heavily on federal funding, with a Congressional report from 2026 indicating that many higher education establishments depend on federal sources for over half of their research funding. Thus, the implications of these findings could extend beyond immediate job losses for those involved in the misconduct.
Peters reiterated Purdue’s commitment to responsible research practices, asserting that the institution prioritizes the safety of animals in research. “Purdue remains fully committed to maintaining complete compliance with all animal care and use regulations and to sustaining transparent, proactive communication with institutional oversight committees,” he stated.
While the remaining staff members not involved in the violations will undergo retraining on IACUC policies, the chair of the IACUC did not respond to requests for comment regarding the incidents. Budkie noted the unusual nature of these suspensions, particularly for a smaller institution, stating, “For a comparatively smaller institution to have to suspend two protocols apparently within a year, that’s highly unusual.”
As investigations continue, the focus remains on ensuring accountability and upholding the ethical standards required in animal research.
