Purdue University has suspended several animal research projects following internal complaints alleging misconduct, including falsified documents. The allegations emerged in late 2025, when two complaints were lodged with Purdue’s Office of Research. The claims detail significant breaches in research protocols, such as failure to maintain an aseptic environment, inadequate use of personal protective equipment, and the administration of unapproved drugs to laboratory animals.
Documents received by The Exponent through a Freedom of Information Act request from the animal rights organization Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN) revealed serious concerns. The executive director of SAEN, Michael Budkie, emphasized the gravity of the incidents. “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 further noted that any potential scientific contributions from these projects are now irretrievably lost.
One affected research project, titled “Examination of behavioral and neural outcomes associated with drugs of abuse and neurodegenerative diseases,” was initially suspended in October 2025, but was later reinstated. The suspension stemmed from lab members’ failure to properly use PPE, uphold an aseptic environment, and apply effective suturing techniques to prevent catheter dislodgement. Trevor Peters, a spokesperson for the university, confirmed the suspension but clarified that no procedures were conducted outside approved guidelines. “The matter was resolved promptly, and the protocol was reinstated without further concerns,” Peters stated via email.
In a more severe development, another experiment, “High-throughput deep tissue in vivo imaging,” was permanently suspended in December 2025 following a unanimous vote by the IACUC. This suspension was prompted by allegations of improper housing of laboratory mice, failure to euthanize a mouse with a persistent wound, and the use of unauthorized over-the-counter drugs on animals without veterinary consultation. The documentation indicated that a lab member had improperly treated the animal by applying surgical glue to its unhealed wound, likely causing significant pain.
The IACUC’s investigation raised concerns about the integrity of the research logs, suggesting they had been falsified. Records indicated discrepancies in dates and access times, undermining the credibility of the reported animal treatments. Budkie highlighted the alarming nature of these findings, noting that SAEN receives approximately 1,000 lab complaints annually, with 50 to 100 warranting suspensions. Fewer than 10 of these complaints typically involve instances of document falsification.
If the allegations of falsification are substantiated, Purdue could face serious implications for its accreditation status with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. The ongoing investigation into these matters is being conducted under Purdue’s Ethics Policy III.A.2. Consequences for individuals found guilty of research misconduct may extend beyond the university, as the Federal Office of Research Integrity (part of the NIH) could impose temporary or permanent bans on their participation in federally funded research, which is crucial for many academic institutions.
Remaining staff members who were not suspended will be required to undergo retraining on IACUC policies before they can continue their work. The chair of the IACUC was contacted for comment but did not respond by the time of publication.
Budkie remarked on the unusual nature of the situation, particularly for a smaller institution like Purdue. “For a comparatively smaller institution to have to suspend two protocols apparently within a year, that’s highly unusual,” he said. Peters reiterated Purdue’s commitment to responsible research practices and the welfare of animals involved 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 added.
As investigations continue, the outcomes will likely have lasting effects on the researchers involved and the university’s standing in the scientific community.
