Back to Basics

A few months ago, I had a bit of a health scare. I’m fine, or at least, I’m getting there. But like many people who find themselves unexpectedly sitting in a hospital waiting room, I emerged with a renewed appreciation for some very basic things:  

• sleep 

• nutrition  

• movement 

• rest 

The experience reminded me that when life becomes complicated, it can be helpful to return to first principles. 

At Replacing Animal Research, we spend a lot of time working in the complexity. We talk about:

• regulatory frameworks,  

• policy reform,  

• academic incentives,  

• validation pathways,  

• funding structures and  

• scientific cultures.  

And all of those things matter because creating change is complicated. But, occasionally, it’s worth going back to basics and reminding ourselves why replacing animal research matters in the first place. 

The current scale of animal use in scientific procedures

Globally, the number of animals used in research and testing each year is measured not in thousands or millions, but in tens of millions. Estimates extrapolated to include countries with limited reporting come in at around 192 million animals in 2015.  

Given the progress in some countries we tend to assume that whilst the majority of these animals are used in basic research, at least cosmetics testing is a battle that has already been won, right?  

Wrong.

Although more than 40 countries have now introduced full or partial bans, animal testing for cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients has not disappeared. Certainly, there has been enormous progress. When I first became involved in this field, China was often cited as proof that cosmetics animal testing was here to stay. Today, China has dramatically reduced mandatory testing requirements for many imported cosmetics. Mexico has introduced a national ban. Brazil has strengthened restrictions. Canada has acted. And this week, the European Commission published its roadmap towards phasing out animal testing for chemical safety assessments. 

And yet animal testing for cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients has not disappeared globally with regulators in some territories continue to permit, require or request animal data in certain circumstances, particularly for novel ingredients, chemical safety assessments, and some categories of cosmetic products. 

Progress is real, but the job is not finished. 

What does the science say?

This is sometimes uncomfortable to discuss because people understandably assume that if animals are being used, the science must be highly predictive, but unfortunately, the evidence paints a more complicated picture. 

Systematic reviews have identified recurring problems in animal studies: poor study design, inadequate reporting, publication bias and limited translation to human outcomes. Reviews comparing animal findings with subsequent human clinical results have repeatedly found that animal models often fail to predict what happens in people. 

Similarly, many researchers have spent years highlighting concerns about reproducibility and methodological quality in preclinical animal research. The challenge is not that scientists are careless. It is that biological systems are complex, and a result observed in one species under highly controlled laboratory conditions does not always tell us what will happen in a human being living in the real world. The evidence suggests that animal-to-human translation is highly variable and often unpredictable. 

This matters because patients deserve research that is as reliable and as human-relevant as possible. 

Our collective responsibility for animals

When people hear the term “animal experiment”, they often imagine a single dramatic procedure. In reality, laboratory animals experience a series of interventions over time: handling, restraint, injections, blood sampling, behavioural testing, transportation and housing in unfamiliar environments. Many of these procedures are classified as “mild”, but that does not mean they are irrelevant. Anyone who has ever tried to persuade an unwilling Labrador to take a tablet can appreciate that repeated restraint and medical procedures are rarely stress-free experiences! (yes, I’m looking at you, Barney) 

That stress can also affect the science and a substantial body of evidence shows that stress alters physiology, immune function, behaviour and other biological systems, which can confound experimental outcomes. 

The impact extends beyond the animals themselves to the emotional burden carried by the people who care for them. Animal care staff are deeply committed to animal welfare, yet research has shown that many experience moral stress and emotional conflict as a result of their work. 

So seeing past the complexity, the case for replacing animal research comes back to some fairly simple principles. 

• Millions of animals are still being used, even in areas where we know there are better options. 

• Animal models do not always predict human outcomes well and there is a growing toolbox of human-relevant methods which show great potential. 

• And if we can reduce suffering for both animals and the people who care for them, while improving scientific outcomes, why wouldn’t we? 

The details are complicated and the transition will take time. We will undoubtedly disagree about the pace and the pathway. But sometimes it helps to go back to basics and in this area the basics still seem remarkably clear.