…And vitally, avoid talking to no one. 

I have been with Replacing Animal Research for just over four years – which is a decent stretch, but it’s also less than 10% of Replacing Animal Research’s history.  

When we were founded, we were the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME). We existed in an entirely different environment. At the time, the 3Rs were a fairly radical, novel concept. 

For a very quick refresher, the 3Rs are a concept in animal research: 

• Replacement (replace the use of animals entirely) 

• Reduction (use as few animals as possible to get decent data) 

• Refinement (improve animals’ experience) 

Once upon a time, ‘FRAME’ called itself a proud champion of the 3Rs. 

Replacing Animal Research does not. 

The 3Rs were seen, within the sector, as one of the quickest ways to move away from animal research. Now, the conversation is moving purely towards Replacement. That’s where we sit. Refinement and Reduction will happen along the way, but they aren’t goals in themselves. They’re progress markers. 

As you’d expect from a charity that’s been going for over five decades, we’ve adapted and evolved. Two very key things have remained the same, though: 

• We want zero animals to be used in medical research. 

• We believe it takes everyone to do that. 

The unlikely allies

Because we believe it takes everyone, we have to be able to talk to a lot of different people.  

nd that’s where things get tricky.  

We work in a space where we need activists, scientists, policymakers, teachers… Everyone. And, for some, there is a perception that a lot of these groups can’t get on.

In the 90s, animal activists were involved in violent protests, and some researchers and educators still carry those memories and fears.  

On the other side, many activists have strong memories of videos and photos of animal testing at its most visceral. It’s a difficult image to shake. 

Then you have policymakers, who aren’t experts in animal research, so who do they listen to? 

But these groups aren’t diametrically opposed. There are scientists who think we’ll never move away from animal research, and scientists who are actively developing non-animal methods and define themselves as animal activists. 

No group is a monolith with only a single viewpoint.  

Even when we have shared goals, our motivations can be completely different.  

So, how do we get those groups to connect? 

Historically, we’ve been accused of being ‘fence sitters’ (which is deeply painful for me on a personal level as I’ve yet to find a hill I don’t want to die on or a fence I’m not willing to dismantle). 

Here’s what I think we are:  

We’re a bridge. And… Sometimes being a bridge is really uncomfortable.  

The system is the problem, not the people

Let me be clear: we do not yell or kick or throw stones, but we are not here to coddle anyone.  

We are here to create a world where no animal suffers for science. 

And that ‘no animal’ includes humans trapped in harmful systems.  

Many researchers are stuck in a hierarchical system that demands funding, citations, and “the way it’s always been done” just to keep a job. 

So, our language isn’t going to call them the problem. It’s going to call a system that makes genuinely innovative science ‘not fundable’ or ‘not publishable’ the problem. 

We’re going to help the scientists pull it down and rebuild something better.  

We’re at the table because that’s where decisions happen

Sometimes, supporters are surprised we work with the animal science community. It seems contradictory to work with people using animals when we don’t want animals used, but that’s exactly why we do. 

If we don’t talk to them, we can’t create change.  

Animal research is deeply entrenched in scientific research. And while ‘Replacement’ is the ‘first’ of the 3Rs, there is a huge flaw: it obligates the Replacement of animals if a suitable non-animal method already exists.  

Whose job is it to create those Replacements though? No one’s. That’s a problem, right? 

The onus has been put on scientists to develop non-animal methods in a system that makes it hard to get funding to experiment and innovate in a way that could create and share those methods.  

So, we talk to those researchers, and we find ways to help. 

For example, our Replacement Checklist is a tool we have presented to over 60 institutions globally to make non-animal methods a part of the system. We didn’t get it into those labs by shouting through the windows. We got it there by being the most useful people in the room. 

Respecting all animals, even the human ones

When we talk about respect for all animals, that includes humans. This isn’t about being “soft.” It’s about the fact that you can’t build a culture of empathy and not find ways to extend that to the people we’re trying to convince. 

We don’t personify animals to make them “worthy”; they have value because they exist. And we don’t need to agree with a scientist’s past choices to help them make better ones in the future. 

So, that’s why you don’t see us calling scientists ‘cruel’, but you do see us acknowledging, and feeling genuine grief and sadness, about the suffering animals endure.  

Let’s get the job done

I’m a pragmatist. I don’t care about being the loudest or most liked person in the room; I care about getting the job done. 

Choosing to be ‘reasonable’ or ‘soft’ isn’t staying neutral.  

It’s a deliberate decision to be effective. We aren’t being quiet, we’re listening so we can find the problems and work out how to fix them.  

We don’t need to agree on everything to move toward the same goal: a world where science doesn’t rely on suffering.