Remaining Alamogordo research chimpanzees move to new home in Louisiana
The final group of six chimpanzees recently made their way to Chimp Haven, the world's largest chimpanzee sanctuary, in northwest Louisiana.
In total, 21 chimps that were used for biomedical research at Alamogordo Primate Facility (APF), located on Holloman Air Force Base, have been brought to the 200-acre sanctuary over the last 11 weeks. These chimpanzees are among the oldest and most fragile to ever enter sanctuary, with many in their 50s and 60s.
'These chimps, who have spent so many years waiting, are finally home,' Rana Smith, Chimp Haven President and CEO, stated in a news release. 'This is not just a momentous occasion for Chimp Haven, but for every person who worked tirelessly to make this possible. These chimps now have the space to roam, the care they need, and the chance to form deep, lasting relationships with their new companions.'
The chimpanzees are in the process of integrating into Chimp Haven. So far, two wild-born males, Al and Kamaka, have joined a social group led by Tabu, a confident male, and four strong females, according to the news release.
Chimp Haven said the duo have been observed grooming, playing, and resting with other chimps, signaling that their transition is off to a strong start.
The National Institutes of Health stopped funding biomedical research on chimpanzees in 2015. According to the federal agency's website, all the chimpanzees at the Alamogordo Primate Facility were exposed to various microorganisms, such as hepatitis C virus and HIV.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Wistar Institute Receives $17 Million NIH Grant for Personalized HIV Cure Research
Philadelphia-led consortium is selected to tailor HIV curative strategies to participant Philadelphia, PA, Aug. 19, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Wistar Institute announces the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted a five-year, $17 million research award to launch iCure Consortium to develop individualized 'cure regimens' for HIV. The Wistar-led, iCure Consortium's objective is to advance strategies to cure HIV through tailored personalized medicine. 'Today 38 million people still live with HIV worldwide, and 1.3 million contract the virus each year,' said Luis J. Montaner, D.V.M., iCure principal investigator, executive vice president of The Wistar Institute and director of Wistar's HIV Cure and Viral Diseases Center. 'For the first time, this grant brings our best team together working towards a cure tailored to each participant by pairing the latest in neutralizing antibody and cell-therapy breakthroughs against the unique, person-specific features of HIV.' iCure Consortium will test a six-part, individually-tailored therapy designed to wipe out the persistent viral reservoir that remains after antiretroviral therapy in an effort to deliver durable, drug-free remission. The project combines six advanced tactics—neutralizing antibodies, mRNA therapy, viral binders, engineered CAR-T and 'Natural Killer' (NK) cells, and precision latency 'wake-up' drugs—all designed against each patient's unique virus. 'Ending HIV demands more than management—it demands eradication,' said Drew Weissman, M.D., Ph.D., iCure co‑principal investigator, 2023 Nobel Laureate and Roberts Family Professor in Vaccine Research at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. 'This project now allows us to apply our breakthroughs in RNA therapy as part of a cure-directed strategy.' How iCure Works• Wake the latent virus• Map and target unique weak spots with tailored antibodies• Destroy infected cells using 'super‑charged' CAR‑T and NK cells• Enhance clearance and block relapse with bispecific binders In the first step, researchers reactivate the virus in a sample of the participant's blood and identify mutations that the participant has not yet developed antibodies against. They then develop a tailored antibody therapy cocktail specifically designed against these specific mutations. In the next stage, researchers focus on preventing HIV from returning. To do this, they develop person-specific antibodies or small molecule binders that can act as 'homing devices' — beacons that can lead immune cells to the latent virus. Then they genetically modify CAR-T cells and NK cells (immune cells that destroy viruses) to express or use these homing devices to better clear infected cells. Finally, researchers further enhance NK cells. First, they develop stronger and more durable cells, called adaptive NK cells, by supercharging their virus-killing ability. Then, they deploy small-molecule drugs called bispecifics, which bind NK cells to the infected cells they are targeting. "iCure takes full advantage of the advances made in understanding how and where HIV hides from the immune system," said Montaner. "We've built on our knowledge and can use that information to identify a first of its kind targeting to a person's unique HIV features." iCure furthers the research groundwork laid by the BEAT-HIV Martin Delaney Collaboratory ( a Philadelphia-based consortium of more than 95 leading HIV researchers co-led by Dr. Montaner. Montaner called the NIH grant a 'once in a lifetime opportunity' that reflects Wistar's track record as a scientific leader in the effort to develop an HIV cure, as well as its grassroots support and collaboration with the HIV community. 'By the end of this study we hope to have a process by which to identify the virus that we need to go after in each person and have a basis to design clinical trials choosing the best of these strategies to move forward,' said Montaner. Other institutions participating in this study include Johns Hopkins Medicine and iCure co-principal investigator Robert Siliciano, M.D., Ph.D., the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia FIGHT, the Ragon Institute at Harvard University, George Washington University, Duke University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The iCure program is funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of NIH, under award number UM1AI191272. ### The Wistar Institute is an international leader in biomedical research with special expertise in cancer research and vaccine development. Founded in 1892 as the first independent nonprofit biomedical research institute in the United States, Wistar has held the prestigious Cancer Center designation from the National Cancer Institute since 1972. The Institute works actively to ensure that research advances move from the laboratory to the clinic as quickly as possible. CONTACT: Darien Sutton The Wistar Institute 215-870-2048 dsutton@ in to access your portfolio
Atlantic
5 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Two-Word Phrase Unleashing Chaos at the NIH
Since January, President Donald Trump's administration has been clear about its stance on systemic racism and gender identity: Those concepts—championed by a 'woke' mob, backed by Biden cronies—are made-up, irrelevant to the health of Americans, and unworthy of inclusion in research. At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of research studies on health disparities and transgender health have been abruptly defunded; clinical trials focused on improving women's health have been forced to halt. Online data repositories that contain gender data have been placed under review. And top agency officials who vocally supported minority representation in research have been ousted from their jobs. These attacks have often seemed at odds with the administration's stated goals of fighting censorship in science at the NIH and liberating public health from ideology. But its members behave as though they have no dogma of their own —just a wholehearted devotion to scientific rigor, in the form of what the nation's leaders have repeatedly called 'gold-standard science.' This pretense—that the government can obliterate entire fields of study while standing up for free inquiry—is encapsulated by what's become a favored bit of MAHA rhetoric: All research is allowed, the administration likes to say, so long as it's 'scientifically justifiable.' On Friday, the phrase scientifically justified appeared several times in a statement by the NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that set the agenda for his agency and ordered a review of all research to make sure that it fits with the agency's priorities. 'I have advocated for academic freedom throughout my career,' he wrote in a letter to his staff that accompanied the statement. 'Scientists must be allowed to pursue their ideas free of censorship or control by others.' But his announcement went on to warn that certain kinds of data, including records of people's race or ethnicity, may not always be worthy of inclusion in research. Only when its consideration of those factors has been 'scientifically justified,' he wrote, would a project qualify for NIH support. That message may seem unimpeachable—in keeping, even, with the priorities of the world's largest public funder of biomedical research: NIH-backed studies should be justified in scientific terms. But the demand that Bhattacharya lays out has no formal criteria attached to it. Scientific justifiability is, to borrow Bhattacharya's description of systemic racism, a 'poorly-measured factor.' It's imprecise at best and, at worst, a subjective appraisal of research that invites political meddling. (Neither the NIH nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees it, responded to my questions about the meaning and usage of this phrase.) Judging scientific merit has always been one of the NIH's most essential tasks. Tens of thousands of scientists serve on panels for the agency each year, scouring applications for funding; only the most rigorous projects are selected to receive portions of the agency's $47 billion budget—most of which goes to research outside the agency itself. All of the thousands of grants the agency has terminated this year under the Trump administration were originally vetted in this way, by subject-matter experts with deep knowledge of the underlying science. Many of the studies have been recast, in letters from the agency, as being 'antithetical to the scientific inquiry,' indifferent to 'biological realities,' or otherwise scientifically unjustified. The same language from Bhattacharya's email appears in other recent NIH documents. Last week, an official at the agency sent me a copy of a draft policy that, if published, would prohibit the collection of all data on people's gender (as opposed to their sex) by any of the agency's researchers and grantees, regardless of their field of study. It allows for an exception only when the consideration of gender is 'scientifically justified.' The gender-data policy was uploaded to an internal portal typically reserved for agency guidance that is about to be published, but has since been removed. (Its existence was first reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education.) When reached for comment, an HHS official told The Atlantic that the policy had been shot down by NIH leadership, but declined to provide any further details on the timing of that shift, or who, exactly, had been involved in the policy's drafting or dismissal. Still, if any version of this policy remains under consideration at the agency, its aims would be in keeping with others that are already in place. One NIH official told me that one of the agency's 27 institutes and centers, the National Institute for General Medical Sciences, has, since April, sent out hundreds of letters to grantees noting, 'If this award involves human subjects research, information regarding study participant 'gender' should not be collected. Rather, 'sex' should be used for data collection and reporting purposes.' Payments to those researchers, the official said, have been made contingent on the scientists agreeing to those terms within two business days. 'Most have accepted,' the official told me, 'because they're desperate.' (The current and former NIH officials who spoke with me for this article did so under the condition of anonymity, to be able to speak freely about how both Trump administrations have affected their work.) Collecting data on study participants' gender has been and remains, in many contexts, scientifically justified—at least, if one takes that to mean supported by the existing literature on the topic, Arrianna Planey, a medical geographer at the University of North Carolina, told me. Evidence shows that sex is not binary, that gender is distinct from it, and that acknowledging the distinction improves health research. In its own right, gender can influence—via a mix of physiological, behavioral, and social factors—a person's vulnerability to conditions and situations as diverse as mental-health issues, sexual violence, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, and cancer. The Trump administration has expressed some interest in gender-focused research—but in a way that isn't justified by the existing science in the field. In March, NIH officials received a memo noting that HHS had been directed to fund research into 'regret and detransition following social transition as well as chemical and surgical mutilation of children and adults.' That framing presupposes the conclusions of such studies and ignores the most pressing knowledge gaps in the field: understanding the long-term outcomes of transition on mental and physical health, and how best to tailor interventions to patients. (Bhattacharya's Friday statement echoed this stance, specifically encouraging 'research that aims to identify and treat the harms these therapies and procedures have potentially caused to minors.') According to the draft prohibition on collecting gender data, NIH-employed scientists would be eligible for an exception only when the scientific justification for their work is approved by Matthew Memoli, the agency's principal deputy director. Memoli has played this role before. After Trump put out his executive order seeking to abolish government spending on DEI, Memoli— then the NIH's acting director —told his colleagues that the agency's research into health disparities could continue as long as it was 'scientifically justifiable,' two NIH officials told me. Those officials I spoke with could not recall any instances in which NIH staff successfully lobbied for such studies to continue, and within weeks, the agency was cutting off funding from hundreds of research projects, many of them working to understand how and why different populations experience different health outcomes. (Some of those grants have since been reinstated after a federal judge ruled in June that they had been illegally canceled.) The mixing of politics and scientific justifiability goes back even to Trump's first term. In 2019, apparently in deference to lobbying from anti-abortion groups, the White House pressured the NIH to restrict research using human fetal tissue—prompting the agency to notify researchers that securing new funds for any projects involving the material would be much more difficult. Human fetal tissue could be used in some cases, 'when scientifically justifiable.' But to meet that bar, researchers needed to argue their case in their proposals, then hope their projects passed muster with an ethics advisory board. In the end, that board rejected 13 of the 14 projects it reviewed. 'They assembled a committee of people for whom nothing could be scientifically justified,' a former NIH official, who worked in grants at the time of the policy change, told me. 'I remember saying at the time, 'Why can't they just tell us they want to ban fetal-tissue research? It would be a lot less work.'' The NIH's 2019 restriction on human-fetal-tissue research felt calamitous at the time, one NIH official told me. Six years later, it seems rather benign. Even prior to the change in policy, human fetal tissue was used in only a very small proportion of NIH-funded research. But broad restrictions on gathering gender data, or conducting studies that take race or ethnicity into account, could upend most research that collects information on people—amounting to a kind of health censorship of the sort that Bhattacharya has promised to purge. The insistence that 'scientifically justifiable' research will be allowed to continue feels especially unconvincing in 2025, coming from an administration that has so often and aggressively been at odds with conventional appraisals of scientific merit. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of HHS, has been particularly prone to leaning on controversial, biased, and poorly conducted studies, highlighting only the results that support his notions of the truth, while ignoring or distorting others. During his confirmation hearing, he cited a deeply flawed study from a journal at the margins of the scientific literature as proof that vaccines cause autism (they don't); in June, he called Alzheimer's a kind of diabetes (it's not); this month, he and his team justified cutting half a billion dollars from mRNA-vaccine research by insisting that the shots are more harmful than helpful (they're not), even though many of the studies they cited to back their claims directly contradicted them. Kennedy, it seems, 'can't scientifically justify any of his positions,' Jake Scott, an infectious-disease physician at Stanford, who has analyzed Kennedy's references to studies, told me. Bhattacharya's call for a full review of NIH research and training is predicated on an impossible, and ironic, standard. Scientists are being asked to prove the need for demographic variables that long ago justified their place in research—by an administration that has yet to show it could ever do the same.
Business Wire
7 hours ago
- Business Wire
Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits Youth Alcohol Awareness Program Continues Efforts to Prevent Underage Drinking
MIAMI & DALLAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Youth Alcohol Awareness and Education Foundation, Inc. – founded by Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits (Southern Glazer's) to support the prevention of underage drinking – today announced that the Alcohol Education for High School online courses will return for the upcoming 2025-2026 school year. Students in Broward and Miami-Dade counties in Florida, Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties in Texas, and Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, and Richmond counties in New York will benefit from this form of alcohol education. The Youth Alcohol Awareness and Education Foundation, Inc. – founded by Southern Glazer's, to support the prevention of underage drinking – today announced that the Alcohol Education for High School online courses will return for the 2025-2026 school year. AlcoholEdu for High School, developed by EverFi, a company that delivers digital education on critical life skills, is a 90-minute interactive course designed for high school students. It includes science-based alcohol education, with engaging exercises that challenge perceptions, and encourage positive behaviors. The courses are based on five pillars: Knowing the Basics, Knowing Your Influences, Brain and Body, Smart Decisions, and Future Ready. Its goal is to equip students with the knowledge and awareness to make responsible choices about alcohol. The most recent 2024-2025 school year was a complete success as students' assessment scores in the AlcoholEdu for High School program in Florida, Texas and New York rose from 62% pre-lesson to 89% post-lesson, resulting in a 27 percent knowledge increase. Overall, 92% of students who took the course say that these educational sessions will help them make informed and thoughtful decisions for the future. Educators – who play an imperative role in this initiative – reported an extraordinary 94% positive rating across the board: they found value in the material taught in the classroom, noted that students found the materials compelling, and agreed that teacher-provided content was good or better. 'The content was self-contained; it was short enough for the students to stay interested but contained enough information to be educational,' said one of the educators. 'This course helps me get students information that I might not get time to cover in class.' The program launched in 2017 in South Florida. Southern Glazer's expanded support of the program to Texas in 2019 then New York in 2020. Since its start, the program has made a difference for 54,222 students, 331 high schools and has offered 79,660 hours of learning. School personnel and administration can reach out to the following individuals for more information on AlcoholEdu: About Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits is the world's preeminent distributor of beverage alcohol, building brands for moments that matter. The multi-generational, family-owned Company has operations in 47 U.S. markets and Canada, as well as brokerage operations through its Southern Glazer's Travel Retail Sales & Export Division in the Caribbean, Central and South America. In 2025, Southern Glazer's was recognized by Newsweek as one of America's Greatest Workplaces for Diversity and America's Greatest Workplaces for Women, and was ranked by U.S. News & World Report as a Best Company to Work for Overall. Southern Glazer's urges all retail customers and adult consumers to market, sell, serve, and enjoy its products responsibly. For more information visit Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram @sgwinespirits. About EVERFI EVERFI is an international technology company driving social impact through education to address key societal challenges like financial wellness, mental health, workplace conduct, and more. Founded in 2008, EVERFI has reached millions of K-12 and adult learners worldwide with its transformative digital educational content. Through a unique third-party payer model, EVERFI provides K-12 schools in the U.S. with access to essential educational resources at no cost, ensuring that students everywhere gain vital life skills. Recognized as one of the World's Most Innovative Companies by Fast Company and featured on Fortune Magazine's Impact 20 List and the GSC EdTech 150, EVERFI continues to shape the future of digital learning. To learn more about EVERFI, please visit or follow us on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, or X/Twitter @EVERFI.
