At Replacing Animal Research, our mission has always been defined by practical, stepwise change, scientific integrity and optimism. We aren’t just advocates for change; we are trying to catalyse change and make it a reality. We believe that the transition toward non-animal methods and technologies is not just a moral imperative, but a scientific one that will lead to more accurate, human-relevant treatments.

We also know that to achieve this we have to engage not just those conducting animal research, but those who fund it. 

Medical research charities fund scientific research for the purpose of improving knowledge and treatments for human patients. Some charities only fund non-animal-based research, some fund animal research as well. But all funders have a responsibility to ensure the research they fund is based on a sound scientific rational, fits with their mission and purpose, is legally and regulatory compliant, and adheres to required standards of research integrity and ethics. 

Over recent weeks we have started reaching out to UK based medical research charities to point them towards our free Replacement Checklist with the aim of engaging the people who oversee research review processes.

Before getting into this blog, I must first point out our wonderful long-term volunteer Sue that has been making first contact with the charities. As a small charity ourselves our amazing volunteers contribute so much and we are very grateful. Thank you Sue! 

We are here to help – I promise!

A lot of our work would not be possible if we were unable to engage with the animal research community. We take a pragmatic approach to replacing animals and acknowledge that animal use in research and testing is highly unlikely to end in the short term. So, whilst some fantastic organisations are working hard to achieve an immediate end to animal use we focus on improving existing scientific systems to catalyse achievable change today

This is the same ethos that drives us to engage with medical research charities that fund animal work. We recognise that for many medical research charities, discussing animal research is a delicate tightrope walk. There is often hesitation in engaging publicly, or even privately, on the topic, driven by concerns over public perception, donor relations, or potential backlash. Historically, this has led to a careful approach to mentioning animal research but also to discussing frameworks around the decision-making processes, including anything around the ‘3Rs’ principles (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement).

We support organisations to meet the Replacement requirement of the 3Rs and we know our Replacement Checklist is a useful tool for all funders of animal research including medical research charities. Our hope is charities will embed the Checklist in their application and review processes to improve replacement review, and that it will be shared with the scientists conducting peer review of research proposals

Why this matters

The process of scientific peer review for funders is the first point at which proposed animal use undergoes scrutiny to ensure legal and ethical Replacement obligations have been met. Funders therefore have an important role to play in ensuring 3Rs obligations, have been addressed in research proposals. And importantly whether alternatives to animals have been adequately considered by applicants that are proposing animal use.

The need for this is reflected in the 2023 NC3Rs Rawle report that said that funders play a pivotal role in driving the transition toward alternatives to animals and in the 2025 UK Government’s Replacing Animals in Science Strategy which included a commitment to ‘enable funders to ensure thorough scrutiny of animal research in funding decisions’ and ‘encourage policy changes for better embedding 3Rs in the funding process.’ 

Animal use in science is conditional. It causes suffering to animals – which goes against the societal norm. The best way to avoid causing suffering to animals for scientific purposes is to avoid or replace them if possible. Whilst funders are not subject to any legal requirement to ensure replacements are utilised, if they agree to fund animal research there is moral imperative to ensure replacement opportunities have been considered. Doing this also ensures regulatory compliance further down the line, negating the risk of animal methods being rejected at a later stage due to the existence of alternatives.

In reality exploring and implementing replacements is not as black and white as replacing the use of an animal with a non-animal method. It can be complex and may involve a variety of techniques and methods, it may even involve some animal use if alternatives cannot be found for all aspects of the research.

In every animal research proposal surely the first thing that should be explained is what non-animal methods the researcher considered first, where they looked, what methods or techniques they considered, why these methods were not sufficient, and what data could not be provided or what process could not be studied using these methods. Only by holding researchers to account on this can we ensure this expectation is delivered and drive real change. If we want a world where no animal suffers for science, we need to make sure we first create a world where avoiding animal use IS the expected norm and applied every time. We must also ensure this is scrutinised every time to be the case. 

Truly embracing this ethos in science may mean a change in perspective around expectations of prioritising validated techniques or models. If animals have been used widely in a research area historically, finding new , non-animal approaches may require creativity, discovery and potentially failures . But supporting innovative, non-animal projects, particularly those utilising human-centred methods, may also unlock more relevant knowledge to improve human health.

Our Checklist is part of the solution

Many funders want to prioritise replacement but lack the specific framework to ensure researchers have truly examined non-animal options. We aren’t asking charities to do something new, rather we are giving them the tools to do this with more rigor and confidence. 

Our Replacement Checklist is a briefing tool designed to be integrated into existing peer-review and grant-application processes. The Checklist helps ensure researchers have explored human-relevant non-animal opportunities (like organ-on-a-chip or complex 3D cultures) at the design stage and provides a framework for evidencing this for reviewers. 

Get involved!

The response so far from medical research charities has been encouraging. We are providing support that embeds replacement consideration to become a painless part of the workflow. 

Our door is always open to medical research charities and the Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC). Whether you are a small charity focusing on a rare condition or a major funder of global health, our goal is the same: to support your transition toward a future where human-relevant research without animals is the gold standard. 

If you are involved in overseeing grant review processes for a medical research charity, or act as a peer reviewer please watch our webinar for funders, check out our Replacement Checklist and if you can, please fill in this short survey to give us some feedback. 

 Together, we can work towards a future of medicine—without animals.