Animal methods bias hinders animal-free innovation – also in the Netherlands

Publications or grants score less well with animal-free research

Animal methods bias is a deeply rooted preference for animal testing in the scientific world, even when proven animal-free alternatives exist.

Committees that award research grants treat animal testing as the gold standard. The same applies to editors who determine which researchers are allowed to publish in renowned scientific journals such as Nature, Science, and Cell.

This causes researchers to frequently choose animal testing to get their work published or funded, rather than because it is scientifically necessary.

This is what researchers say about animal methods bias

Fortunately, alarm bells are ringing for more and more people in the scientific world, and there are researchers attempting to map the extent of animal methods bias.

Although larger-scale research is still needed to pinpoint exactly how great the impact of animal methods bias is, small-scale research already provides a good impression of the size of the problem. For instance, nearly a third of the 68 scientists surveyed in a 2023 study by Dr. Catharine E. Krebs, a medical research programmer at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), indicated that they had conducted animal experiments at some point, purely to satisfy the preferences of the editors of scientific journals. As many as 38 (!) of the respondents were once asked by reviewers working for such journals to add animal experiments to their study. Only 3 of them considered this request justified.

The most prestigious journals generally do not publish animal-free research. Due to publication pressure, researchers feel compelled to accommodate reviewers, even if they themselves do not believe that animal experiments are necessary.

The major consequence: a vicious cycle of animal testing

The consequences of animal methods bias on the transition to animal-free science are significant.

• Animal suffering: Animal experiments conducted purely to meet expectations cause additional animal suffering.
• Hindering animal-free innovation: Researchers who wish to use animal-free methods face barriers when seeking funders or wanting to publish their results.
• Career barriers for researchers: Young researchers, in particular, feel compelled to choose animal testing because otherwise they have a lower chance of publication in leading journals or receiving important research grants.

All together, this causes science to enter a vicious cycle. Researchers who conduct animal experiments get publications more easily. Published researchers receive funding more easily, and they, in turn, train other researchers to start working with animal experiments as well.

Moreover, review committees that determine which studies receive funding and which do not consist of experienced subject matter experts. Logically, therefore, more researchers working with animal experiments are now taking seats on these types of committees. Because they are trained in and rely on animal testing, they will also be quicker to approve research proposals involving animal testing.

“During my studies, I witnessed firsthand just how persistent bias surrounding animal testing can be. I interned at a research lab known for one particular, rather invasive experiment they performed on rats almost daily. And although there were growing doubts within the team about how meaningful and ethical that test actually was, researchers continued with it. Simply because it helped secure funding and publications.

As an intern, I didn’t feel I was in a position to question this, but it left a deep impression on me. It showed me just how strong external pressure can be and how it can push critical questions into the background. My experience has given me insight into how complex replacing animal testing can be in practice – even when people realize that something needs to and can change.”

– Dina Diek, MSc Biomedical Sciences

This is how animal methods bias exists in the Netherlands

The article in Nature focuses on the international scientific community, but we recognize this issue in the Netherlands as well. Dutch researchers indicate that they regularly receive requests from prestigious international journals to conduct animal experiments after all in order to ‘validate’ their results.

This is evident from interviews conducted by the National Committee for Advice on Animal Testing Policy (NCad) – which can be read in this report – and from the experiences of Dutch scientists. The pressure to publish in influential international journals such as Nature, Science, and Cell is also high in the Netherlands.

“Although I wouldn’t say that I was explicitly denied a grant or publication because I didn’t include animal experiments, I do think there is an underlying expectation that a tumor model ought to be validated in animals. Especially from reviewers and editors. This can lead to indirect pressure, even when the scientific value of the animal experiments is questionable.

I wouldn’t say there is a clear bias, but rather a lack of accepted frameworks for validating animal-free alternatives. If animal models are viewed as the gold standard, animal-free models are often judged on how well they mimic animal outcomes, rather than on their relevance to human biology. I think that is where the real challenge lies.”

– Nils Bessler, PhD candidate in bioengineering for pediatric oncology

Equal opportunities for animal-free science

If we want to make serious progress towards animal-free science, journals, grant providers, and review boards must take animal-free methods just as seriously as animal testing. As long as animal testing remains the standard against which everything is judged, animal-free innovations will lag behind unnecessarily.

That is why we advocate for a fairer system. A system in which animal-free research is evaluated, published, and funded just as thoroughly. Young researchers, in particular, must be given the freedom to choose modern, animal-friendly methods. Without having to fear that this will harm their careers.

In fact, the insights from animal-free research often align better with human needs. That is where the future lies. Only by breaking this ingrained bias will we take real steps towards a science in which laboratory animals are no longer necessary.

Are you a scientist or student encountering animal methods bias yourself? Or would you like to brainstorm about this? Please feel free to contact us. We would be happy to think along with you!