By Katy Rogers
Amending the animal testing ban may appear to be a minor adjustment, but even small changes carry significant consequences. Allowing animal testing in Everett would not only introduce logistical and financial burdens but also risk ignoring ethical concerns and shifting focus away from more pressing community priorities.
A comparison with neighboring communities where animal testing is permitted highlights Everett’s lack of readiness for such a move. Cities like Cambridge, which allow animal testing, have extensive infrastructure to support and regulate it. For example, Cambridge employs a full-time Commissioner of Laboratory Animals—a licensed veterinarian funded by the city—responsible for oversight and enforcement. The city also maintains a Biosafety and Animal Committee with dedicated administrative appointments and specialized resources. Firefighters must undergo biohazard training, and public health and inspectional departments enforce rigorous standards for laboratories. These are essential regulatory measures funded by taxpayers, and they are not optional.
Everett does not have comparable resources or infrastructure to manage these responsibilities. Introducing animal testing here would demand significant investments of time, money, and expertise. The city would need to allocate funding to oversight bodies, enforce public safety measures, and establish new administrative roles—all while addressing the ethical dilemmas inherent in animal testing.
Meanwhile, at the federal level, there is a growing shift away from animal testing in favor of innovative alternatives. Cambridge is at the forefront of this transition, reducing its reliance on animal testing and investing in more humane and forward-thinking research methods. Allowing animal testing in Everett not only ignores these trends but risks creating new problems that divert resources from the issues residents care about most.
Recent developments in Somerville further underscore the risks Everett could face. Somerville, despite its stronger geographic and economic position, has seen its life sciences development projects suffer due to insufficient demand and unmet infrastructure needs. If Somerville, with its proximity to Boston and robust public transit access, is struggling, Everett—with fewer resources and no direct transit to biotech hubs—would face even steeper challenges.
Everett’s limited space and resources compound the problem. Unlike larger cities like Cambridge, Everett lacks the capacity to support animal testing facilities on a comparable scale. Additionally, the region is already oversaturated with lab space, leaving many facilities vacant and underutilized. Loosening Everett’s restrictions risks contributing to this oversupply, creating burdens for taxpayers instead of benefits for the community.
It is crucial to consider the long-term financial, logistical, and ethical consequences of amending animal testing in Everett. These are not temporary challenges; they require sustained investments that could profoundly impact the city’s future. If the City Council chooses to permit animal testing, it must be prepared to meet the rigorous regulatory and financial demands this decision entails. Anything less would leave Everett vulnerable to the same stalled development and unmet potential in Somerville.
Katy Rogers is Everett City Councilor At Large