SB 1166 would Undercut Veterinary Authority and Burden Michigan Research

State Sen. Dayna Polehanki has introduced another proposal regulating animals in research. Senate Bill 1166, introduced September 10, would amend “Teddy’s Law,” Michigan’s laboratory-animal adoption requirements. 

The proposal follows SB 223, which would impose additional reporting requirements, and repeated versions of “Queenie’s Law,” which seek to prohibit certain research involving dogs at public institutions. Together, these bills layer state mandates onto research already governed by federal regulations, veterinary standards and institutional oversight. 

How SB 1166 would change Teddy’s Law 

Under the current law, a research facility must offer a dog or cat to employees or an animal shelter before euthanasia when the animal is no longer needed for research and the attending veterinarian determines it is suitable for adoption. 

SB 1166 would replace that process with a multi-step review. The attending veterinarian would have to issue a written determination but could not find an animal unsuitable solely because of a medical or behavioral condition, treatment cost or duration, or limitations involving facility resources, space or staffing. 

If the attending veterinarian found the animal unsuitable, a veterinarian designated by a partnering shelter would conduct another examination. If either veterinarian determined the animal was adoptable, the facility would have to offer it for adoption. Euthanasia would be permitted only when both agreed that the animal was unsuitable. 

Facilities and shelters would also have to retain the determinations, make them available to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and comply with new state rules and forms. 

Marginalizing the attending veterinarian 

Federal requirements deliberately place responsibility for animal care with an attending veterinarian familiar with the research program, facility and animals. 

Research facilities must give that veterinarian authority to provide adequate care and oversee other aspects of animal use. USDA guidance states that when multiple veterinarians are involved, one attending veterinarian should retain ultimate responsibility. The attending veterinarian also serves - or designates another veterinarian to serve - on the facility’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. USDA explains that authority here.  

SB 1166 would disrupt this structure. A shelter-designated veterinarian with no required laboratory-animal experience, involvement in the animal’s care or knowledge of its research history could override the attending veterinarian. 

This is not a balanced second-opinion process. An outside determination of adoptability would control, while an outside finding that the animal is unsuitable could not reverse the attending veterinarian’s decision to release it. 

Implications for public and commercial research 

Michigan’s universities, hospitals and academic medical centers already operate under USDA and NIH requirements, IACUC oversight and professional accreditation programs. NIH describes the IACUC’s responsibilities, including reviewing protocols, inspecting facilities and evaluating animal-welfare concerns. 

SB 1166 would add examinations, documentation, record retention, housing costs and disposition delays without identifying a failure in that system. Institutions may also struggle to find shelters with sufficient veterinary resources. These burdens could divert funding and staff from research while making Michigan less competitive for grants and partnerships. 

The impact would extend beyond public institutions. Teddy’s Law also applies to qualifying USDA-registered commercial entities, including contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, medical-device developers and private laboratories. 

Commercial studies operate under detailed protocols, sponsor agreements, quality systems and timelines. Introducing an outside party with no relationship to the sponsor could create operational and contractual uncertainty. Smaller companies and specialized laboratories would be particularly vulnerable to added costs and delays. 

Companies also consider regulatory predictability when selecting preclinical research sites. State mandates exceeding federal standards could discourage research investment in Michigan. 

Not every research animal can be adopted 

The biosciences community supports adoption when an animal has completed its research role and can be safely placed in a home. MichBio supported the compromise that produced Teddy’s Law. 

However, euthanasia and necropsy are necessary endpoints in many studies. Tissue examination may be required to evaluate a therapy, device or chemical. Those animals remain necessary to the research and are not subject to Teddy’s Law. 

As MichBio noted in its opposition to SB 223, animal-disposition data presented without the context of study design can create a misleading picture of research activities. 

SB 1166 offers no evidence that attending veterinarians are making improper decisions. Instead, it limits their professional judgment and empowers outside reviewers who may lack relevant expertise. 

Michigan can promote animal welfare without undermining ethical research. Lawmakers should determine whether Teddy’s Law has failed before adding another duplicative regulatory layer that could send scientific investment, talent and innovation elsewhere.