Redefining Research: A Future Beyond Animal Testing

I recently found a striking article by Rachel Nuwer, published in Scientific American Magazine, Vol. 331, No. 2 (September 2024), p. 50. Its title was “The End of the Lab Rat?” As an ardent animal lover, but not of the PETA kind that protests against laboratory research using animals, I was pleasantly surprised to see the ideas presented within. At first, it was almost unbelievable that future clinical trials would not have to use living organisms. But at the pace that science is moving, anything can be possible.

With an expanding horizon in the field of biomedical research, the dependence on animal studies is increasingly being questioned for reasons of both ethics and scientific limitations. This shift is captured in the experience of Itzy Morales Pantoja, a researcher who was personally motivated to look for alternatives to animal models of multiple sclerosis. Her experience reflects a trend in which it is increasingly acknowledged that, although research on animals has, in the past, led to medical breakthroughs, very often it does not produce results that are directly translated into human health.

Morales Pantoja’s work as an undergraduate, inducing multiple sclerosis in mice and observing their suffering, left a lasting emotional impact. Despite her efforts to minimize the animals’ pain, the stress and fear they exhibited were undeniable. This experience, coupled with the disappointing realization that her findings in mice did not translate to human samples, led her to seek out more human-relevant research methods. Today, she is a postdoctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing—a leader in developing lab-grown models of the human brain—toward her ultimate goal: understanding neurodegenerative diseases and ending animal testing.

The problems with using animal models are well known. Though these animal models have contributed to some major medical advances—such as the development of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments for diseases like AIDS and cancer—animal models often fall short in predicting human responses accurately. For example, candidate treatments against Alzheimer’s disease failed in clinical trials about 99.6 percent of the time after showing promise in animal studies. From the beginning of modern physiology, through the natural focus on individual animals to explore generalizations for human health and function, the need for better alternatives has been recognized.

In response to these challenges, interdisciplinary researchers are coming up with novel ways in which research can be conducted without using animals. These have included machine learning approaches to chemically predict toxicity, organs-on-chips to mimic human organ systems, and lab-grown organoids to replicate aspects of human tissue. These are sounder ethically and may also be more physiologically relevant and predictive for human disease.

The key is legislative change, and signs of progress can be seen with this already: Requirements for animal testing to be included as part of new drug applications were eliminated in 2022 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration based on a growing agreement that nonanimal methods are capable of generating equally if not more reliable data. This new direction is being substantially funded by the National Institutes of Health, in large part through a $300 million program that supports the development and validation of nonanimal alternatives for drug screening and disease modelling.

On the other hand, it has to be noted that this transition is not going in an easy way since for the most part, the regulatory agencies still have to define which standards must be set and met by alternative models in order for them to fully substitute animal-based tests. This gap in clear guidelines further creates uncertainty for those researchers willing to adopt new methods but concerned that their findings may not receive the blessing of the regulators. Furthermore, some areas of research, especially work on complex biological systems, will continue to rely on animal models for some time to come.

However, the trend toward more human-relevant research is unstoppable. Cosmetics and personal care, driven by consumer demand to take the lead, have now become animal-test-free, with thousands of companies having received certification as animal-free. Alternatives are also gaining ground in toxicity testing—today, artificial intelligence-based algorithms are already used to predict the safety of thousands of chemicals. Such progress is concerned with lessening the need for animal testing and leading to far more effective and cheap research in its results.

With this, the future of biomedical research relies on being developed and validated toward innovative and human-focused models aiming to provide, at the same time, accurate and ethical alternatives to animal testing. The humane narrative of “As scientists like Morales Pantoja increasingly challenge the limits of the possible, the community is edging closer to that future where the hurt of animals is diminished—and the prospect of better treatments for human diseases finally looms into view.”

Acknowledgement: This article is based on the significant work of Rachel Nuwer, a science journalist and authorwhose article “The End of the Lab Rat?” appeared in Scientific American Magazine, Vol. 331, No.2, September 2024, p. 50. The author gratefully acknowledges her work and continued efforts to make biomedical research more humane.

Prof. Dr. Prahlada N. B
24 August 2024
Chitradurga. 

Reference: 

Nuwer R. The End of the Lab Rat?: Replacing research animals with tools that better mimic human biology could improve medicine. Sci Am. 2024 Sep 1;331(2):50. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican092024-6FqBJhTgoiDcZznXsHUR10. PMID: 39163232.