If you have ever taken a flu vaccine or used ibuprofen pills to relieve a headache, then you have already experienced the significant influence of animal research. Using animals to test new pharmaceuticals and model diseases is a prominent research method in the biomedical industry, and with good reason. Animal research with cows helped scientists develop the first-ever vaccine for smallpox, opening the floodgates to the discovery of countless more life-saving vaccines. Mice were used in the first testing stages of chemotherapy to decrease the size of tumors. Even our understanding of the heart and our ability to conduct a bypass surgery can be credited to previous research done on canines. Needless to say, the history and importance of non-human research cannot be overstated. However, despite the remarkable discoveries made through animal studies, recent statistics show some shortcomings of this research method. 

A study conducted by the University of Paris in 2023 tested the efficacy of animal studies by tracking the statistics of how many animal studies resulted in human therapeutics. Benjamin Ineichen and his colleagues accomplished this through a meta-analysis, a type of study that compiles the results of previous experiments to draw conclusions. In this case, Ineichen pulled from 122 different studies prior to August 2023 to see how likely it was for animal studies to progress into human testing. What they found was a shockingly low percentage of animal therapies used for human efforts, with only 5% of the studies gaining regulatory approval for their animal-tested therapeutics to be used for humans. Drugs that were tested successfully in animals may not necessarily translate well into humans, given the vastly different internal environment of a non-human system to that of a human. Just as an example, several treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease showed a disparity in results between animals and humans. Given these statistics and the ethical concerns of using and harming animal life in research studies, scientists have continued to look for alternative research methods. 

The Physicians Committee presented some of the latest developments in animal testing models at the annual American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) conference, where I had the pleasure of talking with representatives of the company as well as some industry professionals who highlighted the need to push away from animal research towards human-focused research techniques. One of these research techniques includes the Organ-on-a-chip model developed by Emulate. Essentially, this chip contains miniature models of organ systems in our body, and it attempts to replicate the conditions and environments of that organ as accurately as possible. The brain chip, for example, is embedded with many of the different cell types that our brain contains, while also incorporating several structural features from our brain, including a thin barrier-like layer. Additionally, the wells in these cells allow for a continuous flow of cells and liquids, which helps to emulate the constantly changing environment within our brains. These bells and whistles go a long way toward mitigating the issue of using animal models by accounting for the nuances that only humans share in our biology, allowing scientists to conduct experiments without worrying about whether their efforts would translate well for human patients. 

The Organ-on-a-Chip model is just one way to create human-based chips, but many scientists have created similar chips to achieve some remarkable results. Highlighted on the Physicians Committee’s website is a statistic showing that a staggering 99.6% of drugs capable of curing Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) in animals were not able to provide the same results in humans. Instead, Joseph Park and his colleagues created a 3D chip model of the disease, incorporating many of the human cells involved with the disease. However, this model was different from previous chip models in that they were successfully able to mimic the neuroinflammatory response typically seen in AD, where immune cells synchronize an attack to the neurons in our brain. The hope is that with these more accurate and human-based models, developing therapeutics will have a much better chance of success than they previously found under animal research.

These new findings in human-based research models show significant promise as a new way for scientists around the globe to model disease and test their therapeutics. Despite these efforts, however, the National Institute of Health (NIH) still lends 47% of its grants to research with animal components, with 70% of the funds given by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke going towards animal research as well. While it is unreasonable to ask for the biomedical research industry to steer away from animal research altogether, since that has been such a fundamental and guiding way of conducting research, more funding and attention should go towards the human-based alternative research methods that the Physicians Committee highlighted. 

If you would like to inquire more about the research and advocacy that they do, make sure to visit their website at https://www.pcrm.org/.