Support grows for non-animal testing, but adoption remains slow

Cruelty Free International said the adoption of non-animal testing methods is progressing slowly despite widespread support for ending animal testing. The UK, EU, US, and Canada have all committed, in some way, to phasing out or reducing the use of animals and replacing them with humane and human-relevant non-animal approaches, yet decisive action remains urgent.

There were still 2.64 million uses of live animals in scientific procedures in Great Britain in 2024, a decrease of just 2% on official figures for 2023. In the UK, 72% of people surveyed want a binding and timetabled plan to phase out the use of all animals in experiments, and Gallup research showed that, since 2001, animal testing has had the biggest downturn in the percentage of US citizens who think an issue is morally acceptable.

The UK government’s phase-out strategy, published in November, was described as a strong first step, with increased funding seen as particularly key. The strategy can be the catalyst for a long-term vision to significantly reduce the number of tests on animals in the UK if it is delivered with strong leadership and is genuinely and fully collaborative, engaging with civil society, NGOs, academia, and industry to boost global innovation.

The article said collaboration should transcend national and continental boundaries because animal testing requirements can differ between countries. America’s National Institutes of Health recently established a Standardized Organoid Modelling Center to accelerate organoid-based technologies that aim to reduce reliance on, and ultimately replace, animal use, and centres of excellence with adequate resources are needed in the UK too.

It said long-term funding for such centres is essential when investment in non-animal approaches remains a vanishingly tiny percentage of scientific research and development budgets. These centres can provide education and training, enable replacement-focused research to meet evolving regulatory needs, and build on non-animal testing initiatives already underway both inside and outside of government.

The article said non-animal methods are, in many cases, already proving themselves to be faster, cheaper, and more reliable, but structural and regulatory issues and outdated mindsets are preventing their adoption. In the UK and EU, it is illegal to conduct tests on animals if non-animal methods exist, yet tests may still occur due to inadequate oversight and uncertainty about how non-animal approaches can be used to meet regulatory data requirements.

It also said companies often hesitate to use non-animal approaches because they are uncertain if regulators will accept the results. The article added that many animal tests were never formally validated in the first place and yet are still held up as the gold standard despite their well-acknowledged limitations.

The article said there are profound biological differences between humans and other animals, and tests on animals frequently fail to predict human outcomes. It cited estimates that 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials despite promising results in preclinical tests, including tests on animals, and that for Alzheimer’s disease the figure is estimated to exceed 99%. It also said development timelines stretch over a decade and costs exceed $2 billion per drug.