Joe Smith, University of Tennessee

A perentie lizard in Dallas, an African penguin in Boston and an Oberhasli goat in Chicago are just a few recent examples of animals at zoos and aquariums benefiting recently from acupuncture therapy. As acupuncture has gained wide use in human medicine in the U.S., it also has become increasingly common in veterinary practice, especially for pain management.

The Conversation U.S. interviewed University of Tennessee Assistant Professor of Veterinary Medicine Joe Smith, a specialist in farm animal medicine and veterinary clinical pharmacology, about this trend. He describes acupuncture’s current uses for treating many species, from household dogs and cats to large animals like horses, cows and llamas:

Is veterinary acupuncture modeled on the traditional Chinese version?

There are two schools of thought about veterinary acupuncture. The original form of acupuncture, which has been practiced for thousands of years, follows principles of traditional Chinese medicine. It views the patient through a lens of five elements: wood, fire, earth, metal and water.

Each element is associated with a different type of energy. Practitioners work to maintain balance between those energies, which they believe is essential for a healthy body to function.

Another approach focuses on anatomical effects on the body. Practitioners place needles to achieve specific effects by stimulating muscles or nerves.

Both versions of acupuncture can help veterinary patients. They use very small, flexible needles, about two-tenths of a millimeter wide – less than one-hundredth of an inch. The needles are placed at various parts of the body to elicit specific responses from connective tissues, muscles and nerves.

The needles can be used by themselves, or with low levels of electrical current – a process called electroacupuncture. Both approaches are effective, but research suggests that benefits from electroacupunture last longer.

What does research show about using acupuncture on animals?

Acupuncture and electroacupuncture both increase the body’s levels of compounds called endogenous opioids. These are pain-relieving substances that the body produces naturally. They work similarly to pharmaceutical opioids, such as fentanyl and morphine.

Acupuncture increases these compounds so dramatically that the effect can be reversed with opioid antidotes, such as Narcan.

Studies in small animal medicine show that using acupuncture can speed up healing from nerve injuries, such as spinal cord damage from herniated disks. This is a condition in which material from the disks in between the vertebra of the spinal cord is damaged, and puts pressure on the spinal cord and other parts of the nervous system.

Herniated disks can be very painful for animals. A 2023 study found that when dogs with this condition were treated with acupuncture, nearly 80% recovered, compared with 60% of animals whose cases were managed conservatively without acupuncture. Acupuncture can also make other techniques, such as epidural nerve blocks, more effective when both methods are used together.

Many vets are using acupuncture creatively for other purposes, such as increasing sick animals’ appetites, improving their digestion and accelerating healing from injuries.

How does your veterinary medicine group use acupuncture?

Our practice at the University of Tennessee has used acupuncture most extensively to help rehabilitate animals recovering from conditions like radial nerve paralysis and femoral nerve injury. We can use acupuncture to stimulate muscles or to provide pain relief, either by itself or combined with other therapies.

In our Farm Animal Hospital, we regularly use acupuncture for recumbent or “down” animals. That’s a veterinary term for animals that have been unable to stand for extended periods of time.

With acupuncture, and occasionally electroacupuncture, we can stimulate muscles and nerves that aren’t functioning normally. This help to prevent atrophy, or wasting and thinning of muscle mass.

For every day that a large animal is down, its muscles atrophy and fluid builds up around injured limbs or joints. These effects can prolong their recovery, or even make it less likely that they will recover.

By using acupuncture to stimulate atrophied muscles, veterinarians can start to reverse this process. We have used acupuncture extensively on large animals, including cattle, horses, llamas, alpacas, sheep, goats, pigs and even camels.

One example is goats that have spinal cord injuries caused by parasite migration – a condition called cerebrospinal nematodiasis, or “meningeal worm.” Worm larvae that normally are parasites of white tail deer infect goats through the animals’ digestive tracts, then migrate to the spinal cord and nervous system. They get lost and die there, causing inflammation that can do significant damage.

We use acupuncture and electroacupuncture to stimulate the goats’ large and accessory spinal nerves and the muscles in the animals’ legs and backs. This gives the goats more muscle function when the inflammation clears, and we believe it helps reduce their pain.

We’ve also had good results with acupuncture treatment for llamas and alpacas, which are widely used in Tennessee’s Smokey Mountains to carry tourists’ gear up- and downhill. As large animals like these age, they can develop osteoarthritis, a degenerative joint disease that’s incredibly painful and debilitating for them. Acupuncture and electroacupuncture can help keep them moving.

Our equine services mainly use acupuncture for rehabilitation, helping horses recover from injuries.

One advantage of acupuncture and electroacupuncture in large animals is that they don’t have many adverse effects. Drugs can have side effects such as nausea and diarrhea, and may cause potentially serious complications. An acupuncture needle placed by a trained veterinarian has few to no adverse effects when it’s done correctly.

Can pet owners be confident if their vet recommends acupuncture?

If there is a nerve or muscle involved, there is probably a veterinary treatment option using acupuncture or electroacupuncture. New studies regularly add to our understanding of the neurology and biochemistry that underlie these therapies.

Although we’re still learning, if your vet recommends acupuncture for an aging dog or cat – especially for chronic pain – you can be confident that it’s not a fringe treatment. As long as the person treating your pet is a licensed veterinarian, and is certified by a professional organization like Curacore, Chi University or the American Academy of Veterinary Acupuncture, acupuncture should make your pet more comfortable and improve its quality of life.

Joe Smith, Assistant Professor of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jeffrey MacKeigan, Michigan State University

Cancer research in the U.S. doesn’t rely on a single institution or funding stream − it’s a complex ecosystem made up of interdependent parts: academia, pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology startups, federal agencies and private foundations. As a cancer biologist who has worked in each of these sectors over the past three decades, I’ve seen firsthand how each piece supports the others.

When one falters, the whole system becomes vulnerable.

The United States has long led the world in cancer research. It has spent more on cancer research than any other country, including more than US$7.2 billion annually through the National Cancer Institute alone. Since the 1971 National Cancer Act, this sustained public investment has helped drive dramatic declines in cancer mortality, with death rates falling by 34% since 1991. In the past five years, the Food and Drug Administration has approved over 100 new cancer drugs, and the U.S. has brought more cancer drugs to the global market than any other nation.

But that legacy is under threat. Funding delays, political shifts and instability across sectors have created an environment where basic research into the fundamentals of cancer biology is struggling to keep traction and the drug development pipeline is showing signs of stress.

These disruptions go far beyond uncertainty and have real consequences. Early-career scientists faced with unstable funding and limited job prospects may leave academia altogether. Mid-career researchers often spend more time chasing scarce funding than conducting research. Interrupted research budgets and shifting policy priorities can unravel multiyear collaborations. I, along with many other researchers, believe these setbacks will slow progress, break training pipelines and drain expertise from critical areas of cancer research – delays that ultimately hurt patients waiting for new treatments.

A 50-year foundation of federal investment

The modern era of U.S. cancer research began with the signing of the National Cancer Act in 1971. That law dramatically expanded the National Cancer Institute, an agency within the National Institutes of Health focusing on cancer research and education. The NCI laid the groundwork for a robust national infrastructure for cancer science, funding everything from early research in the lab to large-scale clinical trials and supporting the training of a generation of cancer researchers.

This federal support has driven advances leading to higher survival rates and the transformation of some cancers into a manageable chronic or curable condition. Progress in screening, diagnostics and targeted therapies – and the patients who have benefited from them – owe much to decades of NIH support.

But federal funding has always been vulnerable to political headwinds. During the first Trump administration, deep cuts to biomedical science budgets threatened to stall the progress made under initiatives such as the 2016 Cancer Moonshot. The rationale given for these cuts was to slash overall spending, despite facing strong bipartisan opposition in Congress. Lawmakers ultimately rejected the administration’s proposal and instead increased NIH funding. In 2022, the Biden administration worked to relaunch the Cancer Moonshot.

This uncertainty has worsened in 2025 as the second Trump administration has cut or canceled many NIH grants. Labs that relied on these awards are suddenly facing funding cliffs, forcing them to lay off staff, pause experiments or shutter entirely. Deliberate delays in communication from the Department of Health and Human Services have stalled new NIH grant reviews and funding decisions, putting many promising research proposals already in the pipeline at risk.

Philanthropy’s support is powerful – but limited

While federal agencies remain the backbone of cancer research funding, philanthropic organizations provide the critical support for breakthroughs – especially for new ideas and riskier projects.

Groups such as the American Cancer Society, Stand Up To Cancer and major hospital foundations have filled important gaps in support, often funding pilot studies or supporting early-career investigators before they secure federal grants. By supporting bold ideas and providing seed funding, they help launch innovative research that may later attract large-scale support from the NIH.

Without the bureaucratic constraints of federal agencies, philanthropy is more nimble and flexible. It can move faster to support work in emerging areas, such as immunotherapy and precision oncology. For example, the American Cancer Society grant review process typically takes about four months from submission, while the NIH grant review process takes an average of eight months.

But philanthropic funds are smaller in scale and often disease-specific. Many foundations are created around a specific cause, such as advancing cures for pancreatic, breast or pediatric cancers. Their urgency to make an impact allows them to fund bold approaches that federal funders may see as too preliminary or speculative. Their giving also fluctuates. For instance, the American Cancer Society awarded nearly $60 million less in research grants in 2020 compared with 2019.

While private foundations are vital partners for cancer research, they cannot replace the scale and consistency of federal funding. Total U.S. philanthropic funding for cancer research is estimated at a few billion dollars per year, spread across hundreds of organizations. In comparison, the federal government has typically contributed roughly five to eight times more than philanthropy to cancer research each year.

Industry innovation − and its priorities

Private-sector innovation is essential for translating discoveries into treatments. In 2021, nearly 80% of the roughly $57 billion the U.S. spent on cancer drugs came from pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Many of the treatments used in oncology today, including immunotherapies and targeted therapies, emerged from collaborations between academic labs and industry partners.

But commercial priorities don’t always align with public health needs. Companies naturally focus on areas with strong financial returns: common cancers, projects that qualify for fast-track regulatory approval, and high-priced drugs. Rare cancers, pediatric cancers and basic science often receive less attention.

Industry is also saddled with uncertainty. Rising R&D costs, tough regulatory requirements and investor wariness have created a challenging environment to bring new drugs to market. Several biotech startups have folded or downsized in the past year, leaving promising new drugs stranded in limbo in the lab before they can reach clinical trials.

Without federal or philanthropic entities to pick up the slack, these discoveries may never reach the patients who need them.

A system under strain

Cancer is not going away. As the U.S. population ages, the burden of cancer on society will only grow. Disparities in treatment access and outcomes persist across race, income and geography. And factors such as environmental exposures and infectious diseases continue to intersect with cancer risk in new and complex ways.

Addressing these challenges requires a strong, stable and well-coordinated research system. But that system is under strain. National Cancer Institute grant paylines, or funding cutoffs, remain highly competitive. Early-career researchers face precarious job prospects. Labs are losing technicians and postdoctoral researchers to higher-paying roles in industry or to burnout. And patients, especially those hoping to enroll in clinical trials, face delays, disruptions and dwindling options.

This is not just a funding issue. It’s a coordination issue between the federal government, academia and industry. There are currently no long-term policy solutions that ensure sustained federal investment, foster collaboration between academia and industry, or make room for philanthropy to drive innovation instead of just filling gaps.

I believe that for the U.S. to remain a global leader in cancer research, it will need to recommit to the model that made success possible: a balanced ecosystem of public funding, private investment and nonprofit support. Up until recently, that meant fully funding the NIH and NCI with predictable, long-term budgets that allow labs to plan for the future; incentivizing partnerships that move discoveries from bench to bedside without compromising academic freedom; supporting career pathways for young scientists so talent doesn’t leave the field; and creating mechanisms for equity to ensure that research includes and benefits all communities.

Cancer research and science has come a long way, saving about 4.5 million lives in the U.S. from cancer from 1991 to 2022. Today, patients are living longer and better because of decades of hard-won discoveries made by thousands of researchers. But science doesn’t run on good intentions alone. It needs universities. It needs philanthropy. It needs industry. It needs vision. And it requires continued support from the federal government.

Jeffrey MacKeigan, Professor of Pediatrics and Human Development, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jacqueline Reber, Iowa State University

Did you eat cereal this morning? Or have you walked on a gravel path? Maybe you had a headache and had to take a pill? If you answered any of these questions with a yes, you interacted with a granular system today.

Scientists classify any collection of small, hard particles – such as puffed rice, sand grains or pills – as a granular system.

Even though everyone has interacted with these kinds of systems, describing the physics of how the particles collectively act when they are close together is surprisingly hard.

Granular systems sometimes move like a fluid. Think of an hourglass where sand, a very typical granular material, flows from one half of the glass to the other. But if you’ve run on a beach, you know that sand can also act like a solid. You can move over it without sinking through the sand.

As a geologist, I’m interested in understanding when a granular system flows and when it has strength and behaves like a solid. This line of research is very important for many agricultural and industrial applications, such as moving corn kernels or pills in a pipeline or shoot.

Understanding when a granular system might flow is also essential for geologic hazard assessments. For example, geologists would like to know whether the various boulders making up the slope of a mountain are stable or whether they will move as a rockslide.

Transferring forces between grains

To understand the behavior of a granular system, scientists can zoom in and look at the interactions between individual grains. When two particles are in contact with each other, they can transfer forces between each other.

Imagine this scenario: You have three tennis balls – the grains in this experiment. You place the tennis balls in a row and squeeze the three balls between your hand and a wall, so that your hand presses against the first ball. The last ball is in contact with a wall, but the middle ball is free floating and touches only the other two balls.

By pushing against the first ball, you have successfully transferred the force from your hand through the row of three tennis balls onto the wall, even though you’ve touched only the first ball.

Now imagine you have many grains, like in a pile of sand, and all the sand grains are in contact with some neighboring grains. Grains that touch transfer forces between each other. How the forces are distributed in this granular system dictates whether the system is stable and unmoving or if it will move – such as a rockslide or the sand in an hourglass.

Tracking forces in the lab

This is where my research team comes in. Together with my students, I study how grains interact with each other in the laboratory.

In our experiments, we can visualize the forces between individual grains in a granular system. While all granular systems have these forces present, we cannot see their distribution because force is invisible in most grains, such as sand or pills. We can see the forces only in some transparent materials.

To make the forces visible, we made grains using a material that is transparent and has a special property called photoelasticity. When photoelastic materials are illuminated and experience force, they split light into two rays that travel at different speeds.

This property forms bright, colorful bands in the otherwise transparent material that make the force visible. The brightness of the grains depends on how much force a grain is experiencing, so we can see how the forces are distributed in the granular system. The particles themselves do not emit light, but they change how fast light rays travel through them when they experience force – which makes them appear brighter.

Scientists before us have used photoelasticity to visualize force in granular materials. These previous experiments, however, have examined only a single layer of grains. We developed a method to see the forces in not just a single layer of grains but throughout a whole heap.

Observing the forces on the outside of the heap of grains is pretty easy, but seeing how the forces are distributed in the middle of the pile is a lot harder. To see into the middle of the granular system and to illuminate grains there, we used a laser light sheet.

To generate a laser light sheet, we manipulated a laser beam so that the light spread out into a very narrow sheet.

With this light sheet, we illuminated one slice throughout the granular system. On this illuminated slice, we could see which grains were transferring forces, similarly to the previous two-dimensional experiments, without having to worry about the third dimension.

We then collected information from many slices across different parts of the grain heap. We used the information from the individual slices to reconstruct the three-dimensional granular system.

This technique is similar to how doctors reconstruct three-dimensional shapes of the brain and other organs from the two-dimensional images obtained by a medical CT scanner.

In our current experiments, we’ve been using only a small number of grains – 107. This way we can keep track of every individual grain and test whether this method works to see the force distribution in three dimensions. These 107 grains fill a cube-shaped box that is about 4 inches (10 centimeters) wide, tall and deep.

So far, the experimental method is working well, and we’ve been able to see how the force is distributed between the 107 grains. Next, we plan to expand the experimental setup to include more grains and explore how the force changes when we agitate the granular system – for example, by bumping it.

This new experimental approach opens the door for many more experiments that will help us to better understand granular systems. These systems are all around you, and while they seem so simple, researchers still don’t truly understand how they behave.

Jacqueline Reber, Associate Professor of Earth, Atmosphere, and Climate, Iowa State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.