A post on X from American politician Rand Paul has garnered over 30 million views and claims that the Nation Institutes of Health (NIH) spent more than $3 million “to watch hamsters fight on steroids” – labelling the study a “hamster fight club.”

This claim has gained traction on social media, with many users expressing anger and labelling it a “waste of money” or a misuse of Government and American taxpayer funds. This is particularly the case in the wake of Donald Trump’s re-election, which has sparked debate over NIH’s $48 billion biomedical research budget and the perceived funding of “useless” research projects.

We turned to sources such as medical journals, statements from the NIH and previous reporting on hamster research to grasp the facts behind the claim. According to these sources, a long-running study involving hamsters carried out by Behavioural Neuroscience researchers from Northeastern University in Boston began in 1996 and received fundings through research grants from the NIH. The 3 million dollars from the claim encompasses the total amount of money awarded in grants over a period of 20 years.

The study involved giving male hamsters anabolic steroids to study potential aggressive behaviours, withdrawal symptoms and long-term impacts – with the results then potentially shedding light on steroid use in humans. Part of this research included observing how the hamsters fought or reacted aggressively when placed with other non-steroid injected hamsters.

The study’s principal investigator, Dr. Richard H. Melloni Jr., has, along with his collaborators, published a steady stream of findings based on the hamster study since 1996 – consistently publishing articles over the years up till 2021. For instance, one finding showed how aggressive tendencies lingered in young hamsters well into adulthood despite being weaned off steroids – with their brain composition being altered.

The articles also elaborate on methodology and the use of live animals – which, as the researchers have declared, meet the standards of the Northeastern University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee as well as guidelines from the NIH.  Based on our research, it appears that using rodents in the field of neuroscience is extremely common – numerous other studies on steroids by different research teams also use rats as test subjects.

However, this particular study became the focus of animal rights advocacy group PETA in 2015. An article claiming that Melloni and his team were carrying out “macabre animal fighting experiments” was posted on the PETA website with heavy emphasis on the “fight club” aspect of the hamster study without any elaboration on the study’s research goals. Activists from PETA also called for charges to be brought against Melloni for animal cruelty and animal fighting – however this does not appear to have gone anywhere.The NIH ceased funding the hamster study in 2017 – a development PETA has taken credit for and which both NIH and Melloni have declined to comment on. While the study continued up to 2021, it does not appear to be ongoing at the time of writing in 2024. Recent claims about the study appear to have taken the “hamster fight club” angle and similarly omitted context about its objectives.

Therefore, while it is technically accurate that $3 million was given in funding to study steroid use in hamsters – the use of “hamster fight club” and similar headlines obscures the less sensational facts behind the study and its funding. $3 million was granted over the course of 2 decades, and the study is no longer ongoing in 2024. “Watching hamsters fight” was not key purpose of the research and it exists in the context of many similar research projects exploring behaviour, neuroscience, and psychology that can inform how human steroid use is understood in the future.

We give this claim a rating of somewhat true – with the caveat that it is being used without full context on social media by political figures as part of criticism levelled against biomedical research funding by the NIH.

The use of live animals in research has been a contentious topic for decades – with organisations such as PETA lobbying hard against it. Increased scrutiny on labs which use live animals has resulted in higher standards and mandatory guidelines when it comes to the treatment of animals being used as test subjects. However, as prominent research labs have argued, animal testing remains an important and unreplaceable part of studies – from testing of medical treatments and drugs to simulating health and genetic issues in controlled environments. Without the use of animals such as rodents (which are preferred for their size, genetic similarity to humans, and short life cycle) it would be extremely difficult to achieve new discoveries and advancements (particularly in biomedical fields) given that the ethnics of testing on humans is arguably even more contentious.

The complex “grey area” that a topic like live animal research occupies comes under strain when presented as a simplistic, sensational headline like “hamster fight club.” By removing nuance and instead leaning on claims that evoke anger or outrage, it becomes easy to push certain narratives or viewpoints. While both sides can make compelling arguments for and against animal testing, a full picture of the facts and context is key to arriving well-informed stance.