New diary entries reveal a coordinated effort to protect a prominent scientist and silence critics of taxpayer‑funded animal experiments. The entries detail actions taken by a former president to intervene in the scandal.
The diary shows the former president contacted the former head of a major national institute about the scandal, advised him, and introduced him to a political fixer to help discredit and shut down a watchdog organization. These actions went beyond the brief conversation described in the scientist’s memoir.
The watchdog organization had first brought the scandal into public view, and media coverage had attempted to debunk the allegations. In August 2021, FOIA documents revealed a grant directing funds to a laboratory in Tunisia for experiments involving beagles and parasite‑infected insects.
The documents describe a process where beagles were sedated, placed in mesh cages with starved sand flies infected with a parasite, and isolated for nine nights to serve as bait. Another study funded by the same division involved healthy beagles given an experimental drug and intentionally infested with parasite‑carrying flies, resulting in prolonged pain before euthanasia.
Additional records detail a university study that included surgical removal of vocal cords from beagle puppies during toxicity testing. Similar experiments were uncovered by the watchdog organization in multiple laboratories funded with taxpayer money.
The experiments were funded by public money and led to public and congressional pressure that prompted changes in oversight. Despite reforms, some of the tests continue to occur years after the scientist left the institute.
In response, media outlets and fact‑checkers launched a campaign to dismiss the allegations as a smear, downplaying the institute’s role in the experiments. The narrative portrayed the outrage as driven by misleading images and a coordinated campaign.
The overall picture suggests a concerted effort to protect the scientist from criticism over the use of animal subjects in research. The revelations raise questions about transparency and accountability in federally funded research.
